IITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


G(FT  OF 
THE  AUTHOR 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/feudalrelationsbOOwyckiala 


ttDe  TUntvcvsity  of  Cbicaao 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


FEUDAL  RELATIONS 


BETWEEN  THE 


KINGS  OF  ENGLAND  AND  SCOTLAND 

UNDER  THE  EARLY  PLANTAGENETS 


A    DISSERTATION    SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTIES    OF    THE    GRADUATE 

SCHOOLS    OF    ARTS,    LITERATURE,    AND    SCIENCE,    IN    CANDIDACY 

FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT   OF   HISTORY 


BY 

CHARLES  TRUMAN  WYCKOFF 


CHICAGO 
£f)e  ©ntbetattp  of  CfHcago  Wtees 

1897 


Ufte  TUniversfts  of  Cbtcago 

FOUNDED  BV  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


FEUDAL  RELATIONS 


BETWEEN  THE 


KINGS  OF  ENGLAND  AND  SCOTLAND 
UNDER  THE  EARLY  PLANTAGENETS 


A    DISSERTATION    SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTIES    OF   THE    GRADUATE 

SCHOOLS    OF    ARTS,    LITERATURE,    AND    SCIENCE,    IN    CANDIDACY 

FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT   OF   HISTORY 


BY 

CHARLES  TRUMAN  WYCKOFF 


CHICAGO 

CfK  Unibtxtitp  of  &i)fcago  yrr*s 

1897 


CO 

CT> 

CSI 
CM 


T3A 


1 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


en 

Chapter 

I. 

00 

o 

Chapter 
Chapter 

II. 
III. 

Chapter 

IV. 

Chapter 

V. 

Chapter 
Chapter 

VI. 
VII. 

LlJ 
t— 

Chapter 

VIII. 

Bibliography 

The  "Great  Commendation"    . 
The  Cessions  of  Cumberland  and  Lothian 
Norman  Influence  in  Scotland.  . 

The  Reign  of  the  First  Plantagenet  . 
Treaty  of  Falaise  and  Charter  of  Release 
The  Period  of  the  Great  Charter 
The  Reign  of  Alexander  II 
The  Reign  of  Alexander  III     . 


Page 
V 

I 

J9 
33 
64 
77 
95 
"5 
129 

155 


259665 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  exact  nature  and  extent  of  the  feudal  relations  existing 

between  the  crowns  of  England  and  Scotland  have  been  a  fiercely 

mooted  question.     It  lost  its  practical  interest  for 

the  people  at  large  with  the  permanent  union  of  the 

Subject  i   •         j  •       n/r  tu- 

two  kingdoms  in  May,  1707.  Ihis  union,  on  terms 
of  complete  independence  and  perfect  equality,  marks  the 
abandonment  of  the  early  English  claims,  and  indicates  the  just 
basis  on  which  the  Scotch  claims  are  grounded.1 

In  May,  1604,  Lord  Bacon  prepared  a  draft  of  "An  Act 
for  the  better  grounding  of  a  further  Union  to  ensue  between 
the  Kingdoms  of  England  and  Scotland."  In  his  report  of  a 
conference  with  the  lords  he  gives  "  the  reasons  of  the  lower 
house  in  point  of  law,  in  the  question  whether  the  Scots  born  since 
the  King  [James]  came  to  the  crown  be  naturalized  in  Eng- 
land." 

Both  of  these  passages  have  a  bearing  on  the  present  discus- 
sion. 

The  first  speaks  of 

....  these  two  ancient  and  mighty  kingdoms,  which  have  been  so  many 
ages  united  in  continent  and  language,  but  separated  in  sovereignty  and 
allegiance  .... 

The  second  gives  the  reasons  of  the  Commons  against  natu- 
ralization : 

There  is  no  subordination  of  the  crown  of  Scotland  to  the  crown  of 
England,  but  they  stand  as  distinct  and  entire  souverainties  ;  whereas 
Aquitaine,  Anjou,  and  other  places  in  France  were  subordinate  to  this 
crown,  as  appears  by  good  records  that  a  corpus  capias  or  any  writ 
under  the  great  seal  was  of  force  among  them,  and  they  had  access 
here  for  there  complaints  in  Parliament.2 

'For  the  Act  of  Union  see  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons,  XV,  1705-1707. 
*  Works,  III,  pp.  204,  329-30. 


VI  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

But  though  the  union  removed  the  question  from  the  sphere 
of  practical  politics,  it  did  not  lose  its  scholastic  interest.  How 
intense  that  interest  had  been  was  apparent  when 
Its  Interest  Rymer>  who  began  the  "  Foedera  "  in  1693,  dis- 
covered and  published  what  purported  to  be  a  charter  x  of  hom- 
age by  Malcolm  Ceanmore  and  his  son  to  Edward  the  Confessor. 
It  proved  to  be  a  gross  forgery  from  the  pen  of  John  Hardyng, 
the  poet  and  chronicler,  who  had  deposited  it  in  the  treasury 
in  1457.  He  professed  to  have  obtained  it  and  other  documents, 
in  Scotland,  at  great  expense  and  at  the  hazard  of  his  life. 
James  I  (of  Scotland),  he  said,  had  offered  him  1,000  marks 
in  gold  to  give  them  up.  King  Henry  VI  rewarded  him  with 
a  life  pension  of  ^20  per  annum.  The  publication  of  this  char- 
ter just  at  a  time  when  union  was  being  discussed  created  great 
excitement.  Writers  took  up  the  cudgels  on  both  sides.  The 
arguments  of  William  Atwood  "had  the  distinction  of  being 
burned  by  the  Edinburgh  hangman,  at  the  command  of  the 
Scottish  Parliament."  2 

Among  recent  writers  on  this  subject  two  deserve  especial 
mention,  though  their  notes  and  appendices  relating  to  it  form 
only  a  small  part  of  works  on  other  topics.     The 
author  of  "The  History  of  Scotland  under  Her  Early 
Kings"   handles   in  a  masterly  way   a  period  dis- 
missed by  other  historians  as  dark,  fabulous,  and  unworthy  their 
attention.3      The  results    of    his    work,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
purely  Scottish  history,  have  been  generally  accepted  as  scholarly 
and  authoritative.     Mr.  Robertson  incidentally  introduces  much 
valuable  material  in  proof  of  the  independence  of  the  kingdom 
of  Scotland,   though  such  proof  is  not  the  real  purpose  of   his 
work. 

This  position  Mr.  Freeman,  in  his  "  Norman  Conquest,"  sys- 
tematically  combats,  insisting  that   from  A.   D.  924-1328   the 

1  Palgrave,  Docts.  and  Records,  I,  p.  cxcvii  ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  pp.  xii  and  I. 
■  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  p.  xi. 

3  E.  W.  Robertson.     I  am  greatly  indebted  to  his  invaluable  guidance.     Cf.  also 
Skene,  Celtic  Scotland,  and  Burton,  History  of  Scotland. 


INTRODUCTION  VH 

entire  kingdom  of  Scotland  was  in  a  state  of  legal  and  permanent 
dependence  on  the  English  "  Emperor ; "  that  during  this  time 
"  the  vassalage  of  Scotland  was  an  essential  part  of  the  public 
law  of  the  isle  of  Britain."  ■  In  his  essay  on  "  The  Relations 
between  the  Crowns  of  England  and  Scotland  "  he  complains 
because  so  many  of  his  countrymen  condemn  Edward's  assertion 
of  rights  as  unjust  and  illegal,  and  sympathize  with  the  Scots  in 
the  struggle  to  maintain  their  independence  in  the  face  of  over- 
whelming numbers.2  This  feeling  on  the  part  of  Englishmen 
themselves  is  one  more  of  the  slender  twigs  of  testimony  which, 
though  weak  singly,  together  form  an  unbreakable  bundle  of 
proof  in  favor  of  the  justice  and  truth  of  the  claims  of  Scot- 
land. 

It  was  an  often  expressed  desire  of  Mr.  Freeman's  to  take  up 
this  topic  and  discuss  it  at  length.  "The  subject,"  he  says,  "is 
one  excellently  suited  for  a  monograph."3  But  death  came 
before  the  desire  could  be  realized.  Mr.  Robertson's  death  had 
occurred  a  short  time  before  the  criticisms  on  his  work  were 
made.  Nothing  of  note  has  been  written  since  on  either  side, 
beyond  brief  references  to  the  works  of  these  two  men.  Since 
so  eminent  and  recent  a  writer  as  Mr.  Freeman  has  attempted  to 
maintain  in  the  most  absolute  terms  the  dependence  of  the  king- 
dom of  Scotland  on  her  imperial  overlord,  it  cannot  be  deemed 
a  work  of  supererogation  to  review  the  subject  in  the  light  of  all 
the  materials  now  accessible.  The  interests  of  all  who  seek  to 
know  what  is  authentic  history  demand  such  a  reconsideration 
of  traditional  theories. 

In  taking  up  the  subject  afresh,  a  brief  glance  at  the  origin 

and  early  history  of  the  people  who  inhabited  North 
Important  ™  •     •         -n  ,  \       -,i    1       i 

c      ..     ..         Britain  will  be  necessary.     It  will  also  be  imperative 

to  keep  several  points  constantly  in  mind  : 

I.  The  sources  are  largely  from  English  writers,  who  may 

naturally  be  expected  to  show  a  bias  in  favor  of  their  own  land  and 

1  Norman  Conquest,  I,  p.  59. 

2  Hist.  Essays,  First  Series,  4th  ed. 

3  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  G. 


Viii  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

king — especially  when,  as  in  the  case  of  monastic  chroniclers, 

that  king  was    the    source  of  their    bounty.     The 

Sources  Largely  paucjty  Qf   historical   material    in    Scotland   is   due 

ng  ls  '  to  several  causes.     One  writer  charges   it  to   the 

possibly  Biased.  ,..  ,.       ,,      ._,         ,  T     .c  t?      i       j       t. 

R  "malicious  policy      of  Edward  I  of  England,  who, 

in  order  to  establish  his  claim  to  feudal  supremacy 

over  Scotland, 

.  .  .  .  seized  the  public  archives,  ransacked  churches  and  monasteries,  and 
getting  possession  by  force  or  fraud,  of  many  historical  monuments, 
which  tended  to  prove  the  antiquity  or  freedom  of  the  kingdom  [Scot- 
land], carried  some  of  them  into  England,  and  commanded  the  rest  to 
be  burnt. 

This  opinion  is  based  on  a  statement  in  Innes'  "Essay."1  In 
his  preface,  however,  Innes  somewhat  qualifies  the  position  taken 
in  the  main  body  of  his  work.  Edward,  by  a  writ  dated  August 
12,  1 29 1,  at  Berwick-on-Tweed,  required 

....  all  the  charters  instruments  rolls  and  writs  whatsoever  that  might 
concern  the  rights  of  the  competitors,  or  his  own  pretended  title  to  the 
superiority  of  Scotland,  to  be  carried  off  and  placed  where  he  should 
appoint;  and  these  to  be  put  into  the  hands  of  five  persons,  two  Scots 
and  three  English ;  and  these  last  to  act  by  themselves,  if  the  two  first 
happened  to  be  hindered.  All  which  was  accordingly  executed,  and 
all  either  lost  or  destroyed,  or  carried  up  to  London ;  whereof  the 
remains  of  our  records,  partly  printed  by  M.  Rymer,  partly  to  be  met 
with  as  yet  in  the  Tower  of  London  and  archives  of  Westminster,  make 
too  evident  a  proof.2 

Another  writ,  published  by  Rymer,  certifies  that  on  the 
coronation  of  King  John,  in  1292,  certain  documents  were  deliv- 
ered on  his  behalf  to  Alexander  de  Balliol,  chamberlain  of  Scot- 
land, at  Roxburgh  Castle.  The  catalogue,  which  gives  only  a 
general  statement  of  the  number  and  contents  of  the  various 
"  sacks,  hanapers  and  pyxes,  ....  is  too  vague  to  warrant  more 
than  a  mere  guess "  as  to  what  documents  were  included.3 
Innes  well  says : 

XW.  Robertson,  Hist.  Scot.;  Innes'  Essay,  p.  303 ;  Memoir,  p.  xxv. 
■  Innes'  Essay,  p.  305.  3  Bain,  I,  p.  vii. 


INTRODUCTION  IX 

I  have  some  doubt  whether  King  Edward,  having  during  the  con- 
fusions of  a  divided  and  headless  nation,  gotten  himself  declared  supe- 
rior lord  of  Scotland,  would  be  so  very  scrupulous  as  to  restore  back 
those  very  special  records  by  which  that  superiority  had  been  renounced 
by  his  predecessors,  and  Scotland  acknowledged  as  an  independent 
kingdom,  such  as  the  charter  of  release  granted  by  King  Richard  I  to 
King  William,  since  it  still  remains  in  England,  and  was  very  candidly 
published  by  M.  Rymer,  from  the  original.1 

A  document  generally  called  by  historians  "  An  inventory 
taken  of  the  Scotch  Records  at  the  time  of  their  being  brought 
into  the  Exchequer  at  London  by  King  Edward  the  First"  found 
its  way  to  the  English  Exchequer.  It  is  said  to  be  in  reality 
"  a  schedule  of  all  the  bulls,  charters,  and  other  muniments  in 
the  King  of  Scotland's  Treasury  at  Edinburgh  on  Michaelmas  day 
1 282 (three  years  before  the  death  of  Alexander  III).  .  .  .  What- 
ever became  of  these,"  says  Mr.  Bain,  "it  is  pretty  certain 
that  nothing  but  the  mere  inventory  ever  reached  the  English 
Exchequer."  It  hardly  seems  possible,  however,  that  such  a  col- 
lection of  documents  could  have  escaped  the  rigorous  search  insti- 
tuted by  Edward.  The  presence  of  the  inventory  in  the  English 
Exchequer  ought  also  to  be  good  presumptive  evidence,  all  other 
proof  being  wanting,  that  the  articles  recorded  in  it  accompanied 
it.  It  is  said  Edward's  anxiety  "was  rather  to  discover  than  to 
suppress  writings,  as  is  clear  from  his  many  writs  to  the  religious 
houses  of  his  kingdom,  commanding  search  to  be  made  for  evi- 
dence in  support  of  his  claims  of  superiority."  It  is  true  he 
ransacked  the  records  far  and  wide  to  get  support  for  his  claims, 
but  it  may  be  fairly  questioned  what  would  have  been  the 
fate — in  the  hot  partisanship  of  that  period,  and  among  the 
adherents  of  the  powerful  king — of  a  document  which  clearly 
proved  that  he  had  no  claim  to  a  feudal  overlordship  in  Scot- 
land.2 

But  these  long-suffering  records  were  to  endure  worse  things 
at  the  hands  of  fate.  King  John  had  hardly  won  in  his  appeal 
before  he  renounced  his  homage  and  allegiance  to  the  English 

1  Innes,  as  above.  "Bain,  I,  p.  vii. 


X  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

crown,   "wearied   with   King  Edward's   provocations,  with    the 
reproaches  of  his  subjects,  and  probably  of  his  own  conscience.' 
A  league  with  Philip  of  France   called   down  the  vengeance  of 
Edward,  who, 

....  intending  to  ruin  entirely  the  monarchy,  and  abolish  the  regal 
dignity  among  the  Scots,  the  better  to  secure  his  title  of  superior  lord 
over  them,  carried  off  not  only  the  public  records,  but  the  regalia,  and 
even  the  famous  stone  chair  on  which  our  kings  used  to  be  crowned. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  Edward  intended,  if  possible,  to 
reduce  Scotland  to  the  same  condition  as  Wales.  Under  the 
brave  Bruce  the  tide  was  turned,  and  at  York,  in  1328,  in  a  writ 
sanctioned  by  Parliament  and  sealed  with  the  great  seal,  Edward 
III  was  compelled  to  solemnly  renounce  "all  title,  right,  and 
pretension  to  any  superiority  over  the  kingdom  of  Scotland ; 
and  to  declare  null  and  of  no  force  all  past  acts,  writs,  and  con- 
ventions to  the  contrary."1 

Another  factor  in  the  destruction  of  the  Scottish  records  was 
John  Knox  and  the  Scottish  reformers,  who  faithfully  carried 
out  their  maxim,  "The  surest  means  to  hinder  the  rooks  to  come 
back  was  to  burn  their  nests."  Cromwell  also  had  a  part  in  their 
destruction.3 

About  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  John  of  Fordun 
made  an  effort  to  gather  up  the  then  existing  fragments  of 
Scottish  history,  and  compiled  a  chronicle  "in  a  new  form,  that 
suited  best  with  the  taste  of  the  times  in  which  he  wrote."  He 
sought  for  material  in  England  and  Ireland,  as  well  as  in  Scot- 
land, talking  with  learned  men  and  jotting  down  all  the  bits  of 
information  he  could  find.  A  chronicle  based  on  such  fragments 
and  on  the  hearsay  of  centuries  naturally  has  little  weight.  For 
the  later  period  his  work  becomes  more  valuable,  but  his  con- 
tinuators  and  revisers  are  not  trustworthy.     His  imitators,  Boece, 

1  Innes'  Essay,  pp.  11-12.  There  was  an  old  prophecy  that  wherever  the  famous 
Stone  of  Destiny  was,  there  Scottish  kings  should  rule.  It  was  placed  under  the 
coronation  chair  in  Westminster  Abbey,  and  the  prophecy  seemed  fulfilled  when 
James  VI  of  Scotland  became  James  I  of  England.  (Gardiner,.Students'  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  p.  219.) 

"  Bain,  I,  p.  ix. 


Sources  for 


INTRODUCTION  XI 

whose  work  is  "  stuffed  with  fables,"  and  Buchanan,  who  followed 
Boece  simply  because  it  favored  his  designs  against  monarchy, 
are  still  less  reliable. 

But  not  only  must  our  sources  and  authorities  be  sought 
among  English  writers  ;  they  are  also 

2.   From    men    who  almost   without    exception 

lived   and  wrote  after  the   Norman   Conquest  had 

.  brought  in  feudal  ideas,  institutions,  and  language. 

Feudal  Coloring  Where  they  draw  their  materials  from  earlier  writers, 

the    narrative    usually  receives    a    feudal    coloring 

under   their  hands,  if    it   does  not  become   absolutely  corrupt. 

Stubbs,  referring  to  certain  parts  of  Walter  of  Coventry,  says : 

I  dare  not  say  that  this  part  of  the  work  is  of  any  historical  value. 
It  illustrates  the  way  in  which  history  was  used  politically,  during  the 
struggle  with  Scotland,  and  it  has  afforded  us  some  slight  hints  as  to 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  compilation  was  made.1 

Mr.  Robertson  says : 

The  claims  grounded  in  the  feudal  era  on  the  chronicled  dependence 
of  the  Scots  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon  Monarchy  before  the  Conquest, 
may  be  said  to  rest  either  upon  passages  interpolated  in  a  true  text ; 
actual  forgeries  and  fabrications ;  or  else  upon  amplifications  and 
exaggerations  of  the  truth. 

An  example  of  the  first  class  is  the  story  (in  Simeon  of  Dur- 
ham) of  Malcolm's  meeting  with  King  Edward  in  1059.  The 
editor  of  the  Rolls  Series  notes  that  this  is  a  marginal  entry  of 
a  later  date  than  the  text.     Mr.  Robertson  continues : 

As  Roger  Hoveden,  who  at  the  opening  of  the  13th  Century, 
copied  the  whole  of  Simeon's  chronicle  word  for  word  in  his  own,  has 
omitted  all  notice  of  it,  the  entry, — of  which  the  object  is  unmistakable, 
— must  have  been  added  to  the  original  ms.  at  a  very  late  date,  and, 
once  incorporated  with  the  body  of  the  work,  has  been  falsely  stamped 
with  the  almost  contemporary  authority  of  Simeon.* 

The  ancient  laws  of  William  the  Conqueror  also  afford  an 
interesting  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  an  historical  basis  for 

1  Walt.  Cov.,  I,  p.  xxxiv. 

2  Sim.  Dun.,  II,  p.  174  ;  Hoveden,  An.  1059  ;  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  385-6. 


xii  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

the  claim  of  feudal  supremacy  arose.  The  author  of  the  "  Select 
Charters"  says : 

The  following  short  record,  which  is  found  in  this,  its  earliest  form, 
in  the  'Textus  Rofensis,'  a  ms.  written  during  the  reign  of  Henry  I, 
contains  what  is  probably  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  the  legal  enact- 
ments actually  made  by  the  Conqueror,  independent  of  his  confirma- 
tion of  earlier  laws  ;  they  are  probably  the  alterations  or  emendations 
referred  to  by  Henry  I  in  his  charter,  as  made  by  his  father  in  the  laws 
of  King  Edward. 

It  reads  thus : 

In  primis  quod  ....  pacem  et  securitatem  inter  Anglos  et  Nor- 
mannos  servari.  Statuimus  etiam  ut  omnis  liber  homo  foedere  et  Sacra- 
mento affirmet,  quod  infra  et  extra  Angliam  Willelmo  regi  fideles 
esse  volunt. 

Compare  with  this  the  record  as  it  was  moulded  to  suit  the 
purposes  of  later  writers  : 

Statuimus  ....  pacem,  et  securitatem,  et  concordiam,  judicium, 
et  justiciam  inter  Anglos  et  Normannos,  Francos  et  Britones,  Walliae 
et  Cornubiae,  Pictos  et  Scotos  Albanie,  similiter  inter  Francos  et 
insulanos  .... 

Statuimus  ....  intra  et  extra  universum  regnum  Anglie  (quod 
olim  vocabatur  regnum  Britannie)  .  .  .  »* 

It  must  be  noted, 

3.  That  the  physical  features  of  Britain  favor  the  theory  of  an 
English  overlordship,  but  are  against  the  practical  realization  of 
Influence  of  such  a  claim.  In  fertility,  in  acreage,  in  popula- 
Physical  Con-  tion,  England  has  a  great  advantage.  One  writer  on 
ditions  the  subject  estimates  the  relative  populations  as  one 

to  six  or  seven.  This  was  taken  into  account  in  adjusting 
the  relative  amount  of  taxes  at  the  time  of  the  union.     To  offset 

1  Stubbs,  Sel.  Charters,  pp.  83-4 ;  Thorpe,  Anc.  Laws,  I,  p.  490  ;  Hoveden  (An. 
1 180)  gives  these  laws  in  their  simpler  form.  Cf.  also  the  statement  that  Edgar  was 
rowed  on  the  Dee  by  six  or  eight  kings,  among  them  the  King  of  Scots.  Robertson 
shows  this  is  a  fabrication.  Even  Freeman  admits  that  "  William  of  Malmesbury  or 
even  Florence  of  Worcester  may  have  blundered  or  exaggerated  about  Edgar's  triumph 
at  Chester."  (Early  Kings,  II,  p.  386  ;  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Notes  G  and  Q;  Burton,  Hist. 
Scot.,  I,  p.  331.) 


INTRODUCTION  Xlll 

this,  however,  is  the  fact  that  nature  has  marked  out  Scotland  as 
the  home  of  independence — "a  country  well  adapted  for  union 
and  defence."1  Two  mountain  ranges,  intersecting  at  right 
angles,  form  the  backbone  of  the  land,  and  furnish  a  safe  base 
for  attack,  sudden  retreat,  and  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  an 
enemy  who  dares  penetrate  these  defenses  of  nature.  A  rugged 
climate,  and  a  soil  from  which  the  fruits  of  nature  can  be 
obtained  only  through  diligence,  favor  the  development  of  a 
hardy,  warlike  race,  while  the  fertile  south  tempts  them  to 
pillage,  and  thus  to  the  acquirement  of  skill  in  war.  They 
imitated  the  example  of  the  Teuton  rather  than  of  the  Celt,  in  that 
they  avoided  walled  cities,  as  traps,  and  fought  in  the  open, 
where  they  could  make  a  sudden  onset  against  their  foes,  or  an 
equally  sudden  retreat,  if  necessary,  to  the  fastnesses  of  their 
native  hills.  Such  warfare  is  preeminently  difficult  to  meet  and 
overcome,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Germanic  tribes  in  conflict  with 
Rome,  the  Saxon  opposition  to  the  might  of  Charles  the  Great, 
the  successful  struggle  of  the  Swiss  cantons  for  independence, 
and  eventually  of  Scotland  herself. 

4.  The  conscientious  student  can  hardly  hope  to  see  this 
subject  in  its  true  light,  unless  he  views  the  history  of  Scotland 
Must  View  as  a  wn°le>  and  not  in  detached  periods.  He  will 
History  in  its  then  be  impressed  with  the  fact  that  this  history 
Entirety  shows  certain  continuous  characteristics.      It  begins 

with  a  warlike,  independent  people,  who  constantly  resist  any 
encroachment  on  their  rights  and  liberties.  Weak  or  handi- 
capped kings  may  be  untrue  and  bring  their  appeals  to  the  Eng- 
lish king,  in  the  hope  of  gaining  thereby  what  they  could  other- 
wise never  have.  But  they  soon  pass  away,  while  the  struggle 
goes  on.  At  length,  the  great  object  which  has  been  the  cause 
of  struggle  for  centuries  —  an  object  at  first  dimly  perceived,  or 
only  felt  instinctively,  but  constantly  growing  in  clearness  and 
force  with  the  growth  of  a  national  consciousness  —  is  attained, 
and  Scotland  comes  into  the  full  possession  of  her  birth-right. 
This  is  the  true  inference  to  draw  from  these  centuries  of  dis- 

1  Burns,  Scot.  War  of  Indep.,  I,  p.  16  (1874);  Burton,  Hist.  Scot.,  I,  p.  83. 


xiv  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

pute.     They  witnessed  claims  put  forth  only  to  be  strenuously 

denied,  and  in  the  end  successfully  resisted.1 

It  is  necessary  to  turn  now  for  a  moment  to  the  beginnings 

of  Scottish  history.       In  the  early  Christian  era  the  north  of 

Britain  was  inhabited  by  a  number  of  savage,  war- 
Early  History     ,.,.,,  .  .        ' 

like  tribes,  who  were  at  once  a  menace  to  the  Roman 

power,  and  the  terror  of  the  native  Britons.  The  Scots  proper 
came  from  Ireland  at  an  early  date  —  certainly  by  A.  D.  502  — 
and  settled  in  the  region  north  of  the  Firth  of  Clyde.  Farther 
north  and  east  were  other  tribes,  the  Picts  predominating.  South 
of  the  Clyde  the  Britons  found  a  temporary  refuge  in  the 
regions  known  later  as  Strathclyde  and  Cumbria,  while  east  of 
them  lay  a  group  of  Saxons  or  Angles.  These  early  centuries 
are  full  of  warfare  and  shifting  populations,  and  call  up  many 
Kenneth  complicated  and  still   disputed  questions.      But  the 

MacAlpin,  accession  of  Kenneth  MacAlpin,  in  843  A.  D.,2  fur- 

843  A.  D.  nishes  a  safe  starting  point  for  historical  investiga- 

tion. It  is  no  longer  considered  probable  that  the  true  Scots, 
to  which  line  Kenneth  belonged,  could  have  conquered  or  exter- 
minated the  larger  body  of  Picts.3  But  whether  by  a  gradual 
process  of  amalgamation,  or  otherwise,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his 
reign  over  the  Scots  he  was  recognized  as  king  of  the  Picts  also, 
the  united  kingdom  being  bounded  on  the  south  by  the  Clyde 
and  the  Forth.  The  supremacy  of  the  Scots  was  due  in  part  to 
their  superior  civilization.  Their  literature  was  supreme  before 
the  spread  of  Anglo-Saxon  literature  had  begun.  Their  scholars 
were  welcomed  everywhere.  They  stigmatized  the  Saxons  as 
barbarians,  just  as  a  Roman  might  have  done.  Even  the  patri- 
otic Beda  concedes  the  civilizing  influence  which  came  to  the 
Saxons  from  Iona.4 

"Burton,  Hist.  Scot.,  II,  p.  1. 

2  844  A.  D.,  Skene,  Celtic  Scot,  I,  p.  309. 

3  Kenneth's  Scottish  kingdom  included  only  the  modern  shires  of  Perth,  Fife, 
Stirling,  Dumbarton,  and  the  larger  part  of  the  county  of  Argyle.  (Early  Kings,  I, 
P-  39-) 

*  Oswald,  king  of  Northumbria,  sojourned  with  the  Scots  in  his  youth.  On 
becoming  king,  he  sent  to  them  for  a  missionary.     The  illustrious  Aidan  responded, 


INTRODUCTION  XV 

Kenneth,  on  his  accession  to  the  throne  of  the  united  Picts 
and  Scots,  was  met  by  three  foes  —  the  Britons  in  Strathclyde, 
the  Danes,  and  the  Saxons  living  in  the  region  of  the  Tweed. 
He  made  an  alliance  with  the  Britons  by  marrying  his  daughter 
to  Cu,  prince  of  Strathclyde.  The  government  of  this  province 
thus  passed  to  a  Scoto-British  prince  on  the  death  of  Cu.1  Ken- 
neth and  his  successors  had  need  of  all  the  strength  they 
could  command.  Scotland,  like  England,  felt  the  force  of 
invasion  from  the  continent.  A  process  of  redistribution  of 
population,  which  had  been  started  by  the  waves  of  the  great 
migrations,  was  still  going  on.  The  bloody  wars  of  Charles  the 
Great  with  the  Saxons  drove  them  out  in  crowds.  The  outward 
pressure  of  his  policy  of  aggrandizement,  and  that  of  others  who 
imitated  his  example,  set  in  motion  great  masses  of  piratical  sea- 
rovers.  The  conquests  of  the  Norwegian  state  early  in  the 
tenth  century  and  the  establishment  of  a  strong  government  mul- 
tiplied the  number  of  the  pirates,  who  hovered,  like  birds  of 
prey,  on  every  coast.  Of  these  Scotland  received  her  share, 
and  the  influences  thus  exerted  and  the  needs  created  may 
have  had  something  to  do  in  determining  the  relations  between 
her  and  her  southern  neighbor. 

and  established  a  second  Iona  at  Lindisfarne.    On  the  battle  of  Degsaslan  cf.  W. 
Malmes.,  I,  p.  47  ;  Bedae,  Hist.  Eccl.,  p.  88 ;  A.  S.  Chron.,  Ad  an. 
1  After  908  A.  D.     (Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  54,  55.) 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    "GREAT    COMMENDATION,"  HAS    IT    AN   HISTORICAL    BASIS? 

Did  Constantine  II  sustain  a  feudal  relation  to  Edward  the 
Elder?  is  the  question  which  greets  one  on  the  very  threshold  of 
c  t  f  ii  *kis  discussion,  "the  most  important  point  in  the 
qoo-043  A.  D.  whole  dispute,"  "the  primary  fact  from  which  the 
Edward  the  English  controversialist  starts,"  "the  root  of  the 
Elder, 901-925.  whole  matter."  The  so-called  "commendation"  of 
Athelstan,  Constantine  to  Edward  forms  the  first  great  prece- 
925  94°  dent  in  a   long  line  of  precedents,  on  which  the 

English  claims  to  a  feudal  overlordship  in  Scotland  are  based. 
"As  long  as  the  fact  of  the  great  commendation  is  admitted,  the 
case  of  the  West  Saxon  Emperors  of  Britain  stands  firm."1 

Are  there,  then,  authentic  historical  sources  on  which  to  base 
a  belief  that  Constantine  did  thus  "  commend  "  himself,  in  such 
a  feudal  sense  as  to  make  this  act  a  precedent,  good  in  law,  on 
which  to  found  true  feudal  claims? 

The  sole  authority  for  this  act,  so  momentous  for  future  ages, 

is  the  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle.     The  record  is  found  "  not  in  a 

ballad,  or  in  a  saga,  not  in  the  inflated  rhetoric  of  a 
Sources  T.         .  ,  .        ,       ,  ■»«.«#*» 

JLatin   charter,   but   in   the   honest    English   of  the 

Winchester  Chronicle."     "  No  passage,"  says  Mr.  Green,  "  has 

been  more  fiercely  fought  over  than  this,  since  the  legists  of  the 

English  Court  made  it  the  groundwork  of  the  claims  which  the 

English  crown  advanced  on  the  allegiance  of  Scotland."  2    The 

Chronicle    covers    the  period  from  the  invasion  of  Britain  by 

Julius  Caesar  to  the  accession  of  Henry  II,  in  11 54.     Together 

with  Beda's  "Ecclesiastical  History"  it  forms  the  basis  for  the  later 

chroniclers.     The   MSS.,  of  which  there  are  six,  are  considered 

r  Freeman,  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  G. 

a  Norman  Conq.,  I,  note  G ;  Green,  Conquest  of  England,  p.  208,  note. 


2  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

to  have  been  based  on  a  common  original.  In  MS.  A.,  the 
Corpus  Christi,  the  first  original  hand  ends  with  the  year  891 
A.  D.,  "  whence  it  is  continued  in  a  variety  of  hands."  "  It 
contains  many  interlineary  additions,  apparently  of  the  12th 
Century."    This  copy  has  the  following : 

In  this  year  [924]  before  Midsummer,  King  Eadweard  went  with  a 
force  to  Nottingham,  and  commanded  the  burgh  to  be  built  on  the 
south  side  of  the  river,  opposite  to  the  other;  and  the  bridge  over  the 
Trent,  betwixt  the  two  burghs;  and  then  went  thence  into  Peakland, 
to  Bakewell,  and  commanded  a  burgh  to  be  built  and  manned  there  in 
the  immediate  neighborhood.  And  then  the  King  of  Scots  and  all  the 
nation  of  the  Scots,  and  Ragnald,  and  the  sons  of  Eadulf,  and  all 
those  who  dwell  in  Northumbria,  as  well  English  as  Danish  and  North- 
men, and  others,  and  also  the  king  of  the  Strathclyde  Welsh,  and  all 
the  Strathclyde  Welsh,  chose  him  for  father  and  lord. 

MS.  B.  comes  down  to  977  A.  D.  "  It  is  written  in  one  uni- 
form hand,  apparently  of  the  latter  part  of  the  10th  Century," 
and  has  no  reference  to  the  event  of  924. 

MS.  C.  reaches  1066  A.  D.,  "written  apparently  in  the  same 
hand  to  1046  A.  D."     No  mention  of  the  great  gathering  of  924. 

MS.  D.  extends  a  little  further  than  the  other  two  —  to  1079, 
being  "  written  in  one  hand  to  1016  A.  D.,  afterwards  in  several 
....  It  sometimes  enlarges  the  text,  not  only  by  fuller 
extracts  from  Beda,  but  by  the  addition  of  many  events,  relating 
especially  to  Mercia  a?id  Northumberland."  Yet  it  is  absolutely 
silent  regarding  any  great  commendation. 

MS.  E.  "The  hand  as  well  as  the  ink  vary  but  little  to  11 22, 
whence  to  A.  D.  11 54,  where  it  ends,  mutilated,  it  is  in  various 
hands."     It  has  no  mention  of  the  act  of  924. 

MS.  F.  to  A.  D.  1056,  in  Saxon,  "is  in  a  hand  apparently  of 
the  1 2th  Century,  and  nearly  of  the  same  character  through- 
out. It  is  often  carelessly  written,  has  many  erasures,  and  is 
sometimes  illegible,  in  which  state  it  ends."  It  has  the  fol- 
lowing: 

In  this  year  [924]  King  Eadweard  was  chosen  for  father  and  for 
lord  by  the  King  of  Scots,  and  by  the  Scots,  and  by  King  Ragnald, 


THE  "  GREA  T  COMMEND  A  TION  "  3 

and  by  all  the  Northumbrians,  and  also  by  the  King  of  the  Strathclyde 
Welsh,  and  by  all  the  Strathclyde  Welsh.1 

These  entries  in  two  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Chronicle  form 
the  sole  foundation  for  the  feudal  superstructure  which  later 
generations  essayed  to  rear.  Of  these  MSS.  one  is  confessedly 
unreliable  and  comes  from  the  hands  of  a  writer  living  after  the 
Norman  Conquest  —  probably  in  the  twelfth  century.  The  other 
is  in  two  principal  parts,  one  section  closing  with  the  year  891 
A.  D.,  the  other  being  by  various  writers  of  a  much  later  date. 
Mr.  Green  says,  regarding  the  entry  of  924 : 

Nor  is  there,  indeed,  ground  for  placing  the  compilation  of  this 
section  of  the  Chronicle  of  Winchester  earlier  than  975,  or  the  end  of 
Eadgar's  reign,  some  fifty  years  after  the  "commendation"  (Earle, 
Introd.  pp.  xix-xxii);  and  as  the  "  imperial "  claims  of  the  English  crown 
seem  to  date  pretty  much  from  the  later  days  of  Eadgar  or  the  begin- 
ning of  Aethelred's  reign,  an  entry  made  at  that  time  would  naturally 
take  its  form  from  them.2 

This  MS.  also  has  many  interlineary  additions,  apparently  of 

the  twelfth  century.     There  is,  therefore,  reasonable  ground  for 

expecting  to  find  in  this  record,  and  on  this  mooted 

3ec  l0ns  **>      point,    erroneous    or    fraudulent    entries,    and    the 
Traditional  ,  .       .     _  „     .    ,       _,         .   ,  ,, 

y.  "honest  Anglo-Saxon     of  the  Chronicle,  as  well  as 

the  "inflated  rhetoric  of  a  Latin  charter,"  will  bear 
the  closest  inspection.  For  among  the  four  MSS.  which  are 
ignorant  of  any  great "  commendation"  is  the  one  which  is  espe- 
cially rich  in  events  relating  to  Mercia  and  Northumberland. 

What  are  the  reasons,  then,  for  doubting,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
the  record  of  924  ?  Here  the  Celtic  scholarship  of  the  author  of 
the  "  Early  Kings"  3  has  proved  of  great  value.  His  chief  Celtic 
sources  are  Tighernac4  and  the  Annals  of  Ulster,  of  which  he 
says   they  are  "at   this   period  most   accurate   and   trustworthy 

1  Cf.  Thorpe,  Introd.  A.-S.  Chron.     (Mon.  Hist.  Brit,  preface,  p.  75.) 

'Conquest  of  Eng.,  p.  208,  note. 

3  "  It  is  a  work  of  deep  research  and  ability,  and  Mr.  Robertson  has  the  advantage 
of  an  acquaintance  with  Celtic  literature  to  which  I  can  make  no  pretensions."  (Free- 
man, Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  G.) 

♦Died  1088  A.  D. 


4  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

authorities  in  all  connected  with  the  Hy  Ivar  family,"  to  which 
the  Reginald  of  the  Chronicle  belonged.     Mr.  Skene  also  says : 

The  older  annals  [Irish]  stand  in  a  different  [more  trustworthy] 
position.  Those  of  Tighernac,  Inisfallen,  and  the  Annals  of  Ulster,  are 
extremely  valuable  for  the  history  of  Scotland.1 

Mr.  Robertson  shows  that  the  Ragnall,  or  Reginald,  of  the 
Chronicle  was  a  member  of  the  Hy  Ivar  family  of  Northmen, 
who  appear  to  have  come  to  England  and  Scotland  by  way  of 
Ireland.  At  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century  the  most  power- 
ful among  these  pagan  leaders  were  the  grandsons  of  Ivar,  who, 
being  driven  from  Dublin  after  it  was  captured  by  the  Irish  King 
Malfinan  in  902  A.  D.,  sought  to  establish  themselves  in  Scot- 
land. In  904  they  were  expelled  by  Constantine  II.  Ten  years 
later  Reginald,  having  developed  strength,  was  victorious  over 
a  rival  in  a  contest  off  the  Isle  of  Man.  His  followers  rapidly 
increase  in  numbers.  He  lands  at  Waterford  in  917,  while  his 
brother  Sihtric  threatens  the  coast  of  Leinster.  Between  them 
they  regain  their  power  over  their  old  dependency  of  Dublin. 
The  next  year  Reginald  prepares  to  assert  his  right  to  Northum- 
bria,  as  heir  of  his  Danish  kinsman  Halfdan.  When  he  landed 
among  these  northern  Danes,  he  found  them  ready  allies  in  an 
attack  on  York,  which  he  took,  dividing  among  his  followers  the 
lands  of  St.  Cuthbert  and  others.  Edred,  Aldred  of  Bamborough, 
and  his  brother  Uchtred,  abandoning  the  lands  they  had  pos- 
sessed, appealed  to  Constantine,  king  of  Scots,  for  aid.  This 
resulted  in  their  alliance  in  the  first  battle  of  Corbridge-on-Tyne, 
or  Tynemoor,  in  which  Reginald  gained  a  doubtful  victory.  A 
second  battle  at  Corbridge  left  him  master  of  the  field.  After 
his  death  in  921  (An.  Ult.  920)  his  brother  Sihtric  remained 
king  of  Northumbria.  Reginald,  therefore,  could  not  have  com- 
mended himself  to  Edward  the  Elder  in  924  A.  D. 

This  question  is  one  of  the  greatest  difficulty,  as  the  chron- 
ology of  the  period  is  almost  hopelessly  confused  by  the  Eng- 
lish chroniclers.  The  value  of  the  contemporary  Irish  historians 
is  apparent.     Besides  these,  the  next  best  authority  is  probably 

1  Celtic  Scotland,  I,  p.  25. 


THE  "  GREAT  COMMENDATION"  5 

Simeon  of  Durham,  whose  monastery  had  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  the  Dane.  His  work  was  compiled  after  the  Conquest,  and 
the  dates  are  often  confused  or  entirely  wanting.1  It  was  based 
on  the  A.-S.  Chronicle  and  a  copy  of  an  old  Northumbrian 
chronicle,  known  only  through  Simeon's  work,  and  certain  pas- 
sages common  to  him  and  the  A.-S.  Chronicle.2  "  It  is  so 
much  more  circumstantial  than  the  A.-S.  Chronicle  on  northern 
events,  and  its  chronology,  as  I  shall  hope  to  show  presently,  is 
so  much  sounder  than  that  of  the  Chronicle  that  we  can  hardly 
be  wrong  in  making  it  the  original  store."3  Simeon  also  used  as 
a  basis  for  parts  of  his  work  the  Chronicon  ex  Chronicis  of  Florence 
of  Worcester,  "next  after  Beda  and  the  Saxon  Chronicle  the 
principal  source  of  English  history."  It  supplements  the  work 
of  Marianus  Scotus  in  the  earlier  parts,  with  references  to  Beda, 
the  Saxon  Chronicle,  and  Asser's  "Life  of  Alfred." 

Though  Florence  translates  the  Saxon  Chronicle  ....  his  narra- 
tive is  in  several  instances  much  more  circumstantial  than  any  to  be 
found  in  the  existing  mss.  of  that  record,  from  which  he  also  not 
unfrequently  deviates  in  dates,  particularly  in  his  relation  of  events 
during  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Elder  and  Edward  the  Confessor. 
Whence  it  seems  probable  that  he  had  before  him  a  copy  of  the  Chron- 
icle varying  from  any  now  extant. 

He  translates  as  follows  : 

Eo  tempore,  rex  Scottorum  cum  tota  gente  sua,  Reginoldus  rex 
Danorum  cum  Anglis  et  Danis  Northanhymbriam  incolentibus,  rex 
etiam  Streatcledwalorum  cum  suis,  regem  Eadwardum  Seniorem  sibi  in 
patrem  et  dominum  elegerunt,  firmumque  cum  eo  foedus  pepigerunt.4 

He  assigns  this  event  to  the  year  921  A.  D. 

Simeon  states  that  Tilred,  the  successor  of  Cutheard,  bishop 
of  St.  Cuthbert's,  was  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  episcopate  when 
Athelstan,    "suscepta    regni    gubernacula  gloriosissime    rexit.' 

'Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Dun.  Eccl.,  I,  pp.  72,  74;  Hist,  de  St.  Cuth.,  I,  p.  208;  De  Mir. 
et  Trans.,  I,  p.  238 ;  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  pp.  xl,  93,  123.  See  also  Innes'  Essay,  Ap.  3,  and 
War  of  the  Gaedhill  with  the  Gaill,  Introd.,  specially  pp.  lxxxiv  ff. 

"Gesta  veterum  Northanhymbrorum  (?). 

3  Stubbs,  Rog.  Hoveden,  Preface,  p.  xxvii. 

■♦Thorpe,  Introd.  Flor.  Wig.,  pp.  vi,  vii.   Also  An.  921.   Florence  died  11 18  A.  D. 


6  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

He  also  says  that  the  taking  of  York,  the  first  battle  of  Cor- 
bridge,  and  the  division  of  the  lands  of  St.  Cuthbert  among 
Reginald's  followers  had  all  occurred  while  Cutheard  was 
bishop.1  He  alone  mentions  the  death  of  Reginald  (prior  to  his 
account  of  the  death  of  Edward  the  Elder),  but  has  a  greater 
interest  in  the  fact  that  the  pagan  Dane  carried  nothing  away 
with  him  but  his  sins,  than  in  the  exact  date  of  his  death.  He 
uses  the  expression  "tandem."  From  other  sources  it  is  certain 
he  died  in  920  or  92 1,2  and,  therefore,  could  not  have  taken  the 
part  assigned  him  in  924  by  the  Chronicle. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  at  this  period  in  Ireland 
and  Northumbria  a  Reginald  —  not  of  any  family  in  general,  but 
of  the  Ivar  family,  a  great  Danish  leader  and  king,  who  passed 
back  and  forth  with  a  fleet  between  Ireland  and  Scotland ;  that 
he  had  brothers,  Godfrey  and  Sihtric ;  that  a  Godfrey  suc- 
ceeded Reginald  in  Ireland,  and  a  Sihtric  as  king  in  Northum- 
bria, both  by  the  year  921,  both  of  the  Ivar  family.  It  cannot 
be  doubted  that  Reginald  made  an  expedition  across  the  chan- 
nel and  took  York  by  storm  before  the  year  923,  assigned  to 
that  event  in  the  Chronicle.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  lost 
or  retook  York  at  this  period.  It  is  highly  improbable  that 
there  should  have  been  two  men  of  the  same  name  and  family 
and  age,  whose  careers  should  have  been  thus  identical.  That 
part  of  the  Chronicle,  therefore,  which  affirms  the  taking  of  York 
in  923  and  the  commendation  of  Reginald  in  924  must  be  in 
error,  since  it  conflicts  with  these  undoubted  facts,  shown  by  the 

1  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Dun.  Eccl.,  I,  p.  74.  Cutheard's  predecessor,  Eardulf,  died  in 
the  same  year  with  King  Alfred  (901).  Cutheard  died  "cum  jam  quintum  decimum  suo 
in  episcopatu  ageret  annum."  Then  Tilred  succeeded.  There  is  evident  error  in  the 
chronology,  since  Edward  the  Elder  was,  according  to  this,  still  reigning  in  Tilred's 
seventh  year.  But  the  taking  of  York  by  Reginald  could  not  have  been  in  923,  the  date 
assigned  by  the  Chronicle,  and  probably  not  later  than  918,  since  it  occurred  during 
the  life  of  Cutheard. 

a  "The  entry  [A.-S.  Chron.  924]  cannot  be  contemporary,  for  Reginald,  whom  it 
makes  king  in  Northumbria,  had  died  three  years  before,  in  921."  (Green,  Conquest 
of  England,  p.  208.)  Mr.  Skene  expresses  the  opinion  "  that  Mr.  Freeman  has  failed, 
on  the  whole,  to  meet  Mr.  Robertson's  criticism  "  regarding  the  death  of  Reginald, 
and  the  bearing  of  this  passage  on  the  commendation  of  the  Scot  king  to  Edward  the 
Elder.     (Celtic  Scotland,  I,  p.  350.) 


THE  "GREAT  COMMENDATION"  7 

comparative  testimony  of  the  other  early  sources.  It  cannot, 
therefore,  be  made  a  basis  for  argument.1 

A  similar  instance  of  error  or  fraud  occurs  in  two  charters  of 
Athelstan  of  the  year  930  A.  D.,2  in  which  the  signature  of 
Reginald  appears.  These  are  both  marked  by  Kemble  as 
untrustworthy,  and  are  given  up  by  Freeman. 

But  there  are  other  grounds  on  which  to  question  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  statement  of  the  Chronicle.  It  implies  (1)  a 
meeting  at  Bakewell  in  Peakland,  and  not  at  some  other  place 
and  time ;  (2)  a  meeting  of  the  people  as  well  as  of  their  kings. 
Mr.  Freeman  seeks  to  maintain  (1)  that  this  gathering  did  not 
necessarily  occur  at  Bakewell,  nor  at  this  specific  time;  (2) 
that  the  English  king  did  not  become  the  personal  lord  of  each 
man,  but  of  the  kings,  or  chiefs,  only.3  In  reply  it  may  be 
said  (1)  that  the  chronicler  would  hardly  have  followed  the 
course  of  Edward's  military  expeditions  so  explicitly  as  he  has 
done  throughout  his  reign,  only  to  break  down  at  the  most 
important  point  in  his  last  year.  There  is,  moreover,  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  for  any  advance  beyond  Bakewell,  or  of  a 
meeting  at  any  other  time  than  this.  (2)  It  is  evident  from 
the  history  of  Edward's  reign,  and  from  the  opinion  of  later 
writers,  that  such  acts  of  submission  took  place  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  the  people  concerned  (including  both  people  and 
leaders),  or  in  the  later  period,  in  the  case  of  kings,  on  the  bor- 
ders between  the  two  kingdoms.  The  following  are  illustrations : 

King  Eadweard  went  with  some  of  his  force  to  Maldon  in  Essex, 
and  there  encamped,  while  the  burgh  at  Witham  was  being  wrought 
and  built;  and  a  good  deal  of  the  folk  submitted  to  him,  who  were 
before  under  the  power  of  the  Danish  men. 

King  Eadweard  went  with  his  force  to  Buckingham.  .  .  .  And 
Thurkytel  jarl  sought  him  for  his  lord,  and  all  the  holds,4  and  almost 

1  Mr.  Freeman  admits  that  "  a  scribe  might  easily  put  Reagnald  instead  of  some 
other  name,"  thus  admitting  the  force  of  the  argument.  (N.  C,  I,  Note  G.)  On  similar 
errors  in  Chronicle  see  Cod.  Dip.,  I,  p.  lxxxv. 

*Cod.  Dip.,  II,  Nos.  351,  352. 

3  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  G.     Per  contra  cf.  Green,  Conq.  of  Eng.,  p.  208. 

4A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  905,  Note  4. 


8  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

all  the  chief  men  of  Bedford,  and  also  many  of  those  belonging  to 
Northampton. 

King  Eadweard  went  with  an  army  to  Bedford  ....  and  gained 
the  burgh ;  and  almost  all  the  townsmen  who  had  previously  dwelt 
there  turned  to  him. 

King  Eadweard,  with  a  force  of  West  Saxons,  went  to  Passenham, 
and  sat  there  while  they  surrounded  the  burgh  at  Towcester  with  a 
stone  wall.  And  Thurferth  jarl,  and  the  holds,  and  all  the  army 
which  belonged  to  Northampton,  north  as  far  as  the  Welland,  sub- 
mitted to  him  and  sought  him  for  their  lord  and  protector  .... 
and  all  the  folk  that  were  left  there  [Huntingdon]  of  the  peasantry 
submitted  to  King  Eadweard  and  sought  his  peace  and  protection.  .  .  . 

Eadweard,  with  an  army  of  West  Saxons,  went  to  Colchester  .... 
and  a  great  number  of  people  submitted  to  him,  both  in  East  Anglia 
and  in  Essex,  who  had  before  been  under  the  power  of  the  Danes. 
And  all  the  army  in  East  Anglia  swore  unity  with  him,  that  they  all 
that  would  that  he  would,  and  would  protect  all  that  the  king  would 
protect  both  by  sea  and  by  land.  And  the  army  which  belonged  to 
Cambridge  chose  him  specially  for  their  lord  and  protector  and  con- 
firmed it  by  oaths  as  he  it  then  dictated. 

Eadweard  went  with  a  force  to  Stamford,  and  commanded  the 
burgh  to  be  wrought  on  the  south  side  of  the  river ;  and  all  the  people 
who  belonged  to  the  northern  burgh  submitted  to  him  and  sought 
him  for  their  lord.  .  .  .  He  took  possession  of  the  burgh  at  Tam- 
worth,  and  all  the  people  in  the  Mercians  land,  who  had  before  been 
subject  to  Aethelflaed,  submitted  to  him.  And  the  kings  of  the  North 
Welsh,  Howel,  Cleduac,  and  Jeothwell,  and  all  the  North  Welsh  race, 
sought  him  for  lord.  He  then  went  to  Nottingham,  and  reduced  the 
burgh,  and  ordered  it  to  be  repaired  and  peopled,  both  with  English- 
men and  Danish.  And  all  the  people  who  were  settled  in  the 
Mercians  land  submitted  to  him,  both  Danish  and  English. 

Athelstan  in  like  manner  received  the  submission  of  the 
North  Welsh  at  Hereford  and  of  the  Cornishmen  at  Exeter.1 

These  instances,  which  might  be  multiplied,  show  what 
was  the  universal  custom  of  that  age.  The  king  went  from 
place  to  place,  fortifying  and  strengthening  defenses,  and 
received  the  submission  and  oaths  of  allegiance  of  the  people  in 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  913,  915,  919,  921,  922;  W.  Malmes.,  Gest.  Reg.,  I,  p.  148. 


THE  "GREAT  COMMENDATION"  9 

groups,  which  gathered  from  the  country  centering  on  the 
places  where  he  was.  Each  freeman  swore  to  be  faithful  and 
true  to  his  Saxon  "Hlaford  and  Mundbora."  This  would  render 
it  imperative  that  the  place  of  meeting  should  be  centrally- 
located,  and  not  so  far  removed  but  that  the  distant  freemen 
could  be  present  without  serious  hardship  or  delay.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  the  number  of  places  at  which  Edward  received 
the  submission  of  his  people.1  But  Bakewell  in  Peakland  is  in 
Derbyshire,  on  the  border  of  Edward's  dominions,  and  far 
removed  from  Strathclyde  and  distant  Scotland.  The  idea  of 
these  peoples  going  thither  to  do  homage  is  completely  at  vari- 
ance with  the  customs  and  history  of  this  period.  Writers  of  a 
later  age  testify  what  they  conceive  the  earlier  custom  to  have 
been.  The  kings  met,  if  at  all,  on  the  borders  of  the  two  king- 
doms,2 and  such  a  meeting  was  usually  supported  by  the  march 
of  an  English  army  into  the  north.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  all 
Simeon's  work  drawn  from  original  sources  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  any  act  of  submission  to  Edward  the  Elder  on 
the  part  of  the  people  of  the  north.  He  writes  of  the  troubles 
with  the  Danes,  of  the  alliance  which  the  Scottish  king  headed 
against  them,  of  the  life  and  death  of  Reginald  and  of  King 
Edward.  But  he  is  profoundly  ignorant  of  any  union  of  these 
foes  and  of  the  gathering  of  their  hosts  at  Bakewell  before  their 
feudal  lord.  Is  it  likely  such  an  event,  affecting  the  north  so 
radically,  could  have  occurred  and  escaped  absolutely  the  notice 
of  the  northern,  Irish,  and  Danish  chroniclers  ?  He  shows  his 
conception  of  the  matter  when  he  says  of  Athelstan  :  " primusque 
regum  totius  Britanniae  quaqua  versum  adeptus  imperium."3 

The  only  authority,  then,  for  the  so-called  "commendation" 
is  the  passage  cited  from  the  Winchester  MS.  of  the  A.-S.  Chron- 

_  icle.     Of  the  first  part  of  the  entry  there  is  no  doubt. 

Summary  r  J 

It  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  narrative  of  the  rest 
of  Edward's  reign  in  its  language,  in  the  mode  of  action,  and  in  its 

1 A  careful  comparison  of  the  Chronicle  with  Droysen,  or  some  good  atlas,  is  helpful. 

2  Fl.  Wig.,  and  Sim.  Dun.,  An.  1092. 

3  Cf.  Ritson,  Annals  of  Picts,  etc.,  An.  937. 


IO  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

particularistic  character.  This  is  especially  noteworthy.  There 
is  good  cause  for  believing  that  the  original  entry  closed  with 
the  words  "immediate  neighborhood,"  though  it  may  have 
included  the  submission  of  the  Danes  living  near  the  Peak  in 
Derbyshire.  Some  such  entry  seems  to  have  been  enlarged  by 
the  later  writers  to  support  the  claims  of  a  feudal  age.  For 
now  the  narrative  suddenly  abandons  its  old  character,  becomes 
universal  rather  than  particular,  violates  all  its  precedents  as  to 
custom,  and  uses  an  expression  nowhere  again  found  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  reigns  of  Alfred,  Edward,  or  Athelstan.1 

And  then  the  King  of  Scots  and  all  the  nation  of  the  Scots,  and 
Ragnald,  and  the  sons  of  Eadulf,  and  all  those  who  dwell  in  Northum- 
bria,  as  well  English  as  Danish  and  Northmen,  and  others,  and  also 
the  King  of  the  Strathclyde  Welsh,  and  all  the  Strathclyde  Welsh, 
chose  him  for  father  and  for  lord. 

Everywhere  else  the  words  are  either  " hlaforde  and  mund- 
bora"  "lord  and  protector,"  or  simply  "hlaforde."  By  its  very 
universality  the  statement  overreaches  itself.  It  bears  on  its 
face  the  stamp  of  exaggeration  and  fabrication  which  charac- 
terizes the  narratives  of  the  reign  of  Edgar.  Nor  is  the  phe- 
nomenon difficult  to  explain  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  he 
endowed  no  less  than  forty-eight  religious  houses.3  It  is  cer- 
tainly contradicted  by  the  fact  that  Reginald  died  before  the 
year  924.  If  921,  the  date  given  by  Florence,  be  accepted,  it 
involves  a  worse  quandary,  for  it  leaves  the  last  three,  and  most 
important,  years  of  Edward's  reign  a  blank.3  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  desperate  struggle  which  Athelstan  and  Edmund  had 
with  the  people  of  the  north.  It  would  not  have  been  had  they 
submitted  after  conquest.  But  that  they  should  take  the  trouble 
voluntarily  to  go  and  submit  to  a  possible,  but  far-distant  foe, 
who  had  never  entered  their  territories  nor  in  any  way  threat- 
ened them,  is  beyond  reason.  Equally  absurd,  in  this  quest  of 
voluntary  servitude  by  a  rugged,  daring,  turbulent  people,  is  the 

'Malcolm  II  (1005-1034)  is  called  "Lord  and  Father  of  the  West." 

2Pinkerton,  An  Enquiry,  etc.,  II,  p.  219. 

3  Mr.  Freeman  rightly  insists  on  924  as  the  true  date. 


THE  "  GREA  T  COMMEND  A  TION"  1 1 

willing  union  of  Constantine  and  his  Saxon  allies  with  the  Dane 
Reginald,  by  whom  they  had  been  but  recently  defeated,  who 
still  held,  and  his  brother  Sihtric  after  him,  the  northern  king- 
dom he  and  his  followers  had  won. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable.  At  his  death  Alfred  was  king 
"over  all  the  Angle  race  except  the  part  that  was  under  the 
dominion  of  the  Danes."1  His  son  Edward  pushed  out  the 
bounds  of  the  kingdom  on  the  north  to  the  Peak  of  Derbyshire. 
But  the  submission  of  the  Northumbrian  Danes  did  not  occur 
till  the  death  of  Sihtric,  under  the  reign  of  Athelstan.  The 
story  of  the  great  "commendation"  of  the  north  to  Edward 
cannot,  therefore,  be  accepted  as  an  historical  fact. 

King  Edward  the  Elder  died  in  925  A.  D.,  and  left  to  his 
son  Athelstan  the  work  of  consolidating  and  extending  the 
kingdom.  The  historical  records  of  his  glorious 
'  reign  are  scanty,  and  largely  based  on  traditions 
and  legends,  old  poems,  and  sagas —  materials 
which,  literally  translated  or  adopted  into  the  Latin  of  the 
writers  of  a  feudal  age,  did  not  lose  in  power  to  enhance  the 
glories  of  an  English  king.  Constantine  II  was  in  the  midst  of 
his  long  reign,  and  Sihtric,  the  brother  of  Reginald  the  Dane, 
was  king  in  Northumbria.  Malmesbury  speaks  of  him  as  one 
"qui  ....  antecessorum  regum  potentiam  rugatis  naribus 
derisisset"2 — a  striking  commentary  on  the  supposed  voluntary 
submission  to  Edward  the  Elder,  of  which,  however,  Malmes- 
bury was  ignorant.  These  words  indicate  that  the  Northum- 
brian Danes  did  not  submit  to  a  Saxon  overlord  till  Athelstan's 
day.     He  courted  the  alliance  of  Sihtric  by  giving 

him  his  sister  in  marriage.     Doubtless  he  saw  here 
Relations  to  .  .        .      ,    .  ,       __       , 

n  rth  h  "  an  °PPortunity  to  gain  a  legal  claim  on  the  North- 
umbrian possessions,  which  was  indeed  afforded 
him  on  Sihtric's  death  soon  after,  in  927  A.  D.  The  names  of 
the  Danish  earls  now  first  appear  in  the  authentic  charters  of 
Athelstan.3 

XA.-S.  Chron.,  An.  901.  aWm.  Malmes.,  Gesta  Reg.,  I,  p.  146. 

3  Robertson,  Early  Kings,  Ap.  L ;  Cod.  Dip.,  Nos.  353,  363. 


12  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

One  MS.,  only,  of  the  A.-S.  Chronicle  relates  any  meeting 

between  Athelstan    and  Constantine,   the  king    of 
and  Scotland      ~  T  . 

Scots.     It  reads : 

And  Sihtric  died  ;  and  Athelstan  assumed  the  kingdom  of  the 
Northumbrians  ;  [and  he  subjugated  all  the  kings  who  were  in  this 
island  ;  first,  Howel  king  of  the  West  Welsh,  and  Constantine  king  of 
the  Scots,  and  Owen  king  of  Gwent,  and  Ealdred,  son  of  Ealdulf  of 
Bamborough  :]  and  with  pledge  and  with  oaths  they  confirmed  peace, 
in  the  place  which  is  named  Eamot  [Emmet  in  Yorkshire  ?]....  and 
renounced  every  kind  of  idolatry  ;  and  after  that  departed  in  peace. 

William  of  Malmesbury  also  represents  Constantine  and 
Eugenius,  king  of  Strathclyde,  as  coming  to  Athelstan  at 
Dacor,  in  Cumberland,  to  surrender  their  kingdoms  to  him  ;  by 
whose  order,  also,  Constantine's  son  is  baptized.1  The  confusion 
here  between  pagan  Danes  and  Christian  Scots  who  renounce 
idolatry,  is  apparent,  nor  is  it  in  accord  with  the  fact  that  Con- 
stantine, some  years  before,  had  presided  over  a  church  council 
at  Scone.  If,  however,  as  Mr.  Robertson  suggests,  that  portion 
of  the  Chronicle  in  brackets  be  omitted,  the  sense  will  be  at 
once  restored.  It  seems  to  be  an  interpolation,  and  certainly 
shows  the  chronicler  was  in  error.2  Malmesbury  is  in  the  same 
confusion.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  Dane  Sihtric  renounced 
idolatry  when  he  married  Athelstan's  sister,  and  that  his  son 
Olave,  who  ended  his  days  in  the  monastery  of  Iona,3  was 
baptized  through  the  agency  of  the  English  king.  "As  neither 
Constantine  nor  Eogan  ever  appear  in  the  character  of  subreguli, 
the  first  part  of  the  story  may  be  dismissed  as  an  exaggeration, 
the  supposed  paganism  of  [Constantine]  throwing  great  sus- 
picion on  the  remainder."  This  is  only  one  instance  of  the  way 
in  which  Scots  and  Danes  are  recklessly  confused  as  the  com- 
mon subjects  of  the  English  crown.4 

1  Gesta  Reg.,  I,  p.  147  ;  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  926.     (Cott.  Tiber.,  B.  IV.) 
2Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc,  II,  p.  144  ;  A.  D.  906.     Cf.  Ritson,  An.  of  Picts, 
etc.,  II,  p.  79.     Constantinus  rex  et  Cellachus  episcopus,  leges  disciplinasque  fidei, 
atque  jura  ecclesiarum  evangelorumque.  ...  in  colle  credulitatis  prope  regali  civitati 
Scoan  devoverunt  custoditur  [custodiri].     (Skene,  Celtic  Scot..  I,  p.  351.) 

3  In  980  A.  D.  Cf.  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  74.  «  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  60;  II,  p.  3971 


THE  "  GREA  T  COMMEND  A  TION"  1 3 

Sihtric  left  a  son,  Olave,  or  Anlaf,  who  fled  to  Ireland,  being 
too  young  to  oppose  Athelstan.  At  a  later  time  Olave  became 
Constantine's  son-in-law,  and  it  is  this  alliance  which  first 
excited  Athelstan's  suspicion  and  hostility.  An  English  army 
wasted  the  land,  while  a  fleet  swept  the  coasts,  preventing  the 
junction  of  Irish  and  Scottish  forces.     The  Chronicle  reads  : 

Athelstan  went  into  Scotland  with  both  a  land  force  and  a  ship 
force,  and  ravaged  a  great  part  of  it. 

This  is  given  in  all  the  MSS.  now  published,  but  there  is 
not  a  word  which  can  be  twisted  to  imply  any  submission, 
or  anything  on  which  a  feudal  claim  might  be  based.  Anglo- 
Norman  writers  magnified  this  into  a  complete  subjugation  of 
Scotland,  but  the  battle  of  Brunanburh  is  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary. It  was  rather  a  military  and  naval  demonstration  to  pre- 
vent the  union  of  forces  hostile  to  the  English  king.  There  is 
no  record  of  any  actual  contest  at  this  time.1 

The    battle    of    Brunanburh,    just    mentioned,    occurred    in 

937  A.  D.,  probably  in  a  place  some  distance  south  of  the  Hum- 

ber,  and  near   the  Trent.     Here  a  great  host  met 

to  fight  for  dominion  in  Northumbria.     Athelstan 

and   his   Saxon  and  Danish  forces  were  aided  hy  the  "  pagan 

rovers  of  the  German  Ocean."     And  it  is  to  these  Norsemen  that 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  933  ;  Celtic  Scotland,  I,  p.  352. 

Mr.  Robertson  (Early  Kings,  I,  p.  62)  calls  attention  to  the  three  versions  which 
Simeon  gives  of  this  event.  (Hist.  Dun.  Eccl.,  I,  p.  74,  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  p.  124.)  The 
first,  from  original  sources,  mentions  only  the  extent  of  the  incursion  to  Dunfoeder  (or 
Forteviot)  and  Wertermore,  the  fleet  reaching  the  coast  of  Caithness  ;  the  second,  which 
copies  Florence  of  Worcester,  represents  Constantine  as  purchasing  peace  by  giving 
his  son  as  a  hostage ;  the  third,  in  recognition  of  the  gifts  of  Athelstan  to  the 
shrine  of  St.  Cuthbert,  declares  Scotland  to  be  thoroughly  subdued.  "  According  to 
Brompton  (Twysden,  p.  838),  Athelstan  demanded  a  sign  from  St.  John  of  Beverly 
*  quo  praesentes  et  futuri  cognoscere  possent  Scotos  de  jure  debere  Anglis  subjugari.' 
It  was  granted,  and  the  king's  sword  clove  an  ell  of  rock  from  the  foundations  of 
Dunbar  Castle  !  '  Possessiones,  privilegia,  et  libertates,'  rewarded  the  miracle,  a  price 
for  which  there  was  scarcely  a  patron  saint  in  the  country  who  would  not  have  been 
made  to  confirm  with  signs  and  wonders  the  rightful  supremacy  of  the  English  king 
over  any  people  he  chose  to  name.  The  monks  of  Newburgh  outdid  even  Brompton, 
detaining  Athelstan  for  three  years  in  Scotland,  whilst  he  placed  '  princes '  over  her 
provinces,  provosts  over  her  cities,  and  settled  the  amount  of  tribute  to  be  paid  from 
the  most  distant  islands  ! " 


14  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

the  saga  attributes  the  victory.  Opposed  to  them  was  a  mixed 
force  led  by  Constantine,  king  of  Scots  ;  it  included  his  son-in- 
law,  Olave  Sitricson  ;  Olave,  the  son  of  Godfrey,  from  Ireland ; 
and  Eogan,  king  of  Strathclyde,  who  also  was  a  kinsman  of 
Constantine.  The  strife  was  terrific,  the  slaughter  frightful, 
the  victory  of  the  English  king  glorious.  The  clang  and  roar 
of  the  battle  still  resound  in  the  ancient  war  song  with  which 
the  Chronicle  celebrates  the  valor  of  the  heroes  of  that  day.  It 
left  Athelstan  the  undoubted  master  of  Northumbria,  and  spread 
his  fame  far  among  the  royal  courts  of  the  continent.  But 
there  is  no  evidence  that  he  pursued  his  retreating  enemy  into 
the  north,  or  made  terms  with  them.  Nor  indeed  was  there 
reason  for  it,  since  he  had  gained  his  object — the  defeat  of 
the  powers  that  threatened  his  supremacy  in  Northumbria.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  was  an  agressive  war  on  the 
part  of  the  allies  of  the  north  —  probably  on  English  soil  south 
of  the  Humber. 

The  exact  site  of  Brunanburh  is  one  of  the  unsolved  prob- 
lems of  history.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  reach  more  than  an 
inferential  conclusion  with  the  sources  at  present 
available.  Johnstone  and  Spruner  have  located  it 
in  the  extreme  limits  of  Northumbria,  just  south  of  the  Tweed. 
Others  advocate  a  site  in  Lancashire,  to  explain  the  flight  of 
Anlaf,  son  of  Godfrey,  after  his  defeat  —  "o'er  the  deep  water, 
Dublin  to  seek."  Capgrave  says  a  battle  between  Athelstan, 
Anlaf,  king  of  Ireland,  and  Constantine,  king  of  Scots,  occurred 
at  Bamborough ;  but  as  he  did  not  write  till  the  fifteenth 
century,  and  adds  the  pleasing  information  that  "thorow 
the  prayeres  of  Seynt  Ode,  a  swerd  fel  fro  Hevene  into  his 
[Athelstan's]  schaberk,"  his  testimony  is  not  of  the  highest 
value.1  The  original  authorities  are  the  A.-S.  Chronicle,  Flor- 
ence of  Worcester,  and  Simeon  of  Durham.  The  poem  in  the 
Chronicle  clearly  indicates  that  a  large  part  of  the  hostile  forces 
came  and  departed  by  sea  (the  Humber  and  the  Forth  —  not  the 
Tweed — were  the  great  gateways  for  the  entrance  of  invading 

1  Chron.  Eng.,  p.  117. 


THE  "  GREA  T  CO  MM  EN  DA  TION  "  1 5 

hordes  into  England  and  Scotland).  But  Florence  is  more 
explicit,  and  the  later  writers  follow  him  almost  without  excep- 
tion. As  he  had  a  copy  of  the  A.-S.  Chronicle  not  now  extant, 
his  authority  is  of  the  very  first  order.  He  distinctly  says  that 
Anlaf,  king  of  Ireland  and  of  many  islands,  incited  by  his  ally 
and  father-in-law,  Constantine,  king  of  the  Scots,  entered  the 
mouth  of  the  Humber  with  a  powerful  fleet,  and  that  Athelstan 
and  his  brother  Edmund  met  them  at  a  place  called  Brunan- 
burh.1  One  of  the  accounts  given  in  Simeon  relates  that  the 
battle  was  fought  at  Weondune,  which  is  also  called  Etbrunnan- 
werc,  or  Brunnanbyrig,2  and  that  Anlaf  had  a  fleet  of  six  hun- 
dred and  fifteen  ships.  The  other  account  follows  Florence 
without  comment.  Hoveden  combines  the  accounts  of  Florence 
and  Simeon,  bringing  the  large  fleet  into  England  through  the 
Humber.  There  seems  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  the  battle 
occurred  somewhere  within  easy  reach  of  the  Humber,  since  the 
enemy  not  only  entered  thence,  but  fled  in  their  ships  after  their 
defeat.  Droysen  prefers  the  spot  in  Lincolnshire  already 
referred  to.  Mr.  Skene  considers  that  Aldborough,  situated  on 
the  Ouse,  a  little  northwest  of  York,  and  accessible  by  water  from 
the  Humber,  best  fulfills  the  conditions  required  for  the  site  of 
Brunanburh.  His  chief  objection  to  a  location  further  south  is, 
that  if  a  large  part  of  the  allied  forces  came  from  the  north  by 
land,  it  is  unlikely  that  Athelstan  would  have  permitted  them  to 
penetrate  so  far  into  his  dominions  without  giving  them  battle. 
But,  granting  that  they  came  thus,  the  objection  does  not  seem 
valid.  The  region  north  of  the  Humber,  and  even  Lincolnshire, 
was  still  distinctly  Danish  in  race  and  sympathy.  Among  the 
numerous  burhs  built  by  Edward  the  Chronicle  does  not  men- 
tion one  in  Lincoln.  The  northern  extent  of  his  power  was 
apparently  limited  by  Stamford  on  the  Welland,  by  Nottingham, 
the  Peak  in  Derbyshire,  and  Manchester.  So  that,  in  reality, 
Athelstan's  distinctive  kingdom  had  not  been  touched  nor 
scarcely  threatened  till  the  allied  forces  reached  the  Humber. 
The  movement  from  the  north  was  a  serious  menace  to  his 
1  Fl.  Wig.,  I,  p.  132.  *  Etbrunnanmere  (Skene). 


1 6  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

power  —  a  menace  which  was  carried  into  effect  when  the  Danes 
wrested  from  his  brother  Edmund  half  the  kingdom.  The 
originator  of  a  wise  policy  might  well  hesitate  in  the  presence 
of  this  organized  effort  to  check  the  extension  of  English 
supremacy  beyond  the  Humber.  He  would  seek  to  draw  the 
allies  as  far  as  possible  from  their  base  of  supplies,  to  make  the 
attack  against  them  with  all  the  forces  of  the  kingdom  thor- 
oughly organized,  and,  if  possible,  on  English  soil,  rather  than 
in  the  midst  of  the  hostile  north.  Malmesbury  suggests  just  this 
process.  Anlaf  Sitricson  "spe  invadendi  regni  ....  terminos 
transierat;"  "multum  in  Angliam  processerat  juvenis  audacis- 
simus."  He  apologizes  for  Athelstan's  apparent  dilatoriness  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  purposely  retreated,  in  order  to  derive 
greater  honor  from  conquering  his  furious  assailants.  The 
Norse  sagas  also  intimate  that  all  the  country  beyond  the 
Humber  was  in  a  turmoil,  and  that  the  two  earls  set  up  by 
Athelstan  had  been  driven  out.  It  is  not  out  of  place,  there- 
fore, to  look  for  this  battlefield  south  of  the  Humber.  While 
Aldbourough  doubtless  formed  a  convenient  "trysting  place," 
accessible  alike  from  the  Humber,  the  north,  and  the  west,  a 
vital  objection  to  it  is  the  comparative  ease  with  which  Athel- 
stan and  his  army  might  have  blocked  the  waterway  which  fur- 
nished the  line  of  retreat  for  the  Danish  fleet  of  six  hundred  and 
fifteen  ships.  This  objection  does  not  hold  against  the  site  in 
Lincolnshire.  It  also  was  accessible  from  the  north  and  west. 
The  people  were  akin  to  the  invaders.  At  the  same  time  it  had 
such  an  intimate  connection  with  the  English  kingdom  that 
Athelstan  could  easily  approach  it,  or  at  need  fall  back  on  his 
more  loyal  subjects.  It  was  an  ideal  choice  for  the  invaders. 
On  the  east  was  the  sea,  to  the  west  the  Trent,  while  in  the 
rear  their  fleet  could  lie  at  anchor  in  the  Humber  or  the  Trent. 
A  Roman  road,  crossing  Watling  street  at  right  angles,  con- 
nected the  lands  of  the  Mercians  and  West-Saxons  (who  figure 
in  the  poem  on  Brunanburh)  with  Lincoln  ;  another,  starting  at 
London,  passed  through  Lincoln  and  on  to  the  Humber ;  still 
another  crossed  the  Trent  above   Lincoln,  affording  easy  com- 


THE  "  GREAT  COMMENDATION"  1 7 

munication  with  Chester  and  the  important  centers  in  the 
extreme  north  and  west.  Here,  then,  the  great  hosts  met  to  cast 
the  lot  of  battle  for  supremacy  in  Northumbria.  From  dawn  to 
twilight  the  West-Saxons  "followed  the  footsteps  of  the  hostile 
nations."  Congenial  it  was  to  Edward's  offspring  that  they 
"  'gainst  every  foe,  should  the  land  defend,  treasure  and  homes." 
Nor  did  they  rest  till  the  great  host  was  dispersed  in  flight  by 
sea  and  land,  or  "by  swords  laid  to  sleep"  on  that  famous 
battle-stead.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  an  aggres- 
sive movement  on  the  part  of  the  allies  for  the  recovery  of  the 
Northumbrian  districts  which  Athelstan  had  annexed  to  his 
kingdom  on  the  death  of  Sihtric.  Athelstan  was  on  the 
defensive,  and  the  site  in  Lincolnshire  assigned  by  Droysen  as 
the  scene  of  this  famous  battle  seems  most  reasonable  and  prac- 
ticable. It  certainly  was  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the 
Humber.1 

Athelstan,  having  now  secured  himself  on  the  north,  turned 
to  Wales  and  determined  the  regular  tribute  which  the  Welsh 
kings  should  pay  to  their  Saxon  overlord.2     Their 
w  .  names,  under    the    title  of   subreguli,   first    appear, 

together  with  those  of  the  Danish  leaders,  in  the 
charters  of  Athelstan.  Welsh  bishops  eventually  become  suf- 
fragans of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  English  king 
is  the  common  lawmaker  and  defender  of  Welsh,  Danes,  and 
English  alike.3     But  the  name  of  the  king  of  Scots  does  not 

1  Cf.  A.-S.  Chron.  and  Hoveden,  An.  937 ;  Sim.  Dun.,  I,  p.  76 ;  II,  pp.  xxxiii, 
125;  Skene,  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  pp.  352  ff. ;  Malmes.,  Gesta  Reg.,  I,  p.  142;  The 
Contemp.  Review,  Nov.,  1876;  Guest,  Origines  Celticae,  II,  p.  218. 

"Walt,  of  Cov.,  whose  unreliability  has  already  been  commented  on,  puts  into 
Athelstan's  mouth  the  words,  "  Gloriosus  est  regem  facere  quam  regem  esse."  Cf. 
also  A.-S.  Chron,  An.  1063  ;  W.  Malmes.,  Gesta  Reg.,  I,  p.  148  :  Ita  quod  nullus  ante 
eum  rex  vel  cogitare  praesumpserat,  ipse  in  effectum  formavit,  ut  ei  nomine  Vectigalis 
annuatim  vigenti  libras  auri,  trecentas  argenti,  penderent,  boves  viginti  quinque  milia 
annumerent,  etc. 

zCf.  Robertson,  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  393;  Cod.  Dip.,  Nos.  353,  363,  364,  411, 
426,  433,  451  ;  Thorpe,  I,  p.  275,  Laws  of  Edgar:  "Let  this  ordinance  be  common 
to  all  the  people,  whether  English,  Danes,  or  Britons,  on  every  side  of  my  dominions.'1'' 
This  does  not  include  the  Scots.  Makower  says  :  "  As  regards  Wales  in  particular, 
the  princes  of  that  country  fell,  from  the  beginning  of  the  9th  century,  into  political 


1 8  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

appear  in  any  authentic  charter,  as  an  attesting  subregulus  ;  the 
church  is  notably  independent  of  English  control ;  and  from  the 
days  of  Oswy  and  Egfrid  to  the  time  of  Henry  II,  no  tribute 
is  levied  on  the  kingdom  of  the  Scots,  nor  is  there  any  super- 
vision exercised  by  an  English  king  in  its  internal  affairs. 
Stronger  proofs  of  an  independent  kingdom  could  scarcely  be 
produced. 

dependence  on  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings.  Soon  afterwards  began  the  gradual  coales- 
cence of  the  constitutions  of  the  two  churches.  The  bishoprics  of  South  Wales  came, 
from  the  end  of  the  9th  century,  into  more  or  less  close  connection  with  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  church.  But  it  was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the  12th  century  that  the  Welsh 
bishops  completed  their  submission  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  still  another 
century  passed  before  Welsh  independence  in  state  and  church  was  wholly  overthrown." 
(Constit.  Hist.  Ch.  of  Eng.,  p.  6.)    Cf.  also  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc,  I,  pp.  202-620. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    CESSIONS    OF    CUMBERLAND    AND    LOTHIAN. 

On  the  death  of  Athelstan,  his  successor,  Edmund  (940-946 
A.  D.)  was  unable  to  hold  together  the  kingdom  which  his 
Accession  of  brother  had  conquered.  The  Danes  of  Northumbria 
Edmund.  rose  in  revolt,  and  again  called  in  the  two  Olaves. 

Reduction  of      It  is  not  known  what  part,  if  any,  Constantine  took. 

ane  ag  j^jg  jncreasjng  0\^  age  WOuld  be  a  good  reason  for 
his  non-participation  in  the  movement.  This  time  the  victory 
rested  with  the  rebels.  Eric,  the  son  of  Harold  Harfager,  was 
driven  from  Northumbria,1  and  all  Athelstan's  dominions  north 
of  Watling  street  were  ceded  to  the  two  Olaves.  It  required 
years  of  hard  fighting  to  bring  the  Danelagh  again  to  submission, 
but  in  944  A.  D.  Northumbria  was  forced  to  yield.  Edmund 
then  turned  his  arms  against  Cumberland.  He 
....  harried  over  all  Cumberland  and  gave  it  all  up  to  Malcolm  [I] 
King  of  Scots  on  the  condition  that  he  should  be  his  co-operator  both 
on  sea  and  land. 

The  later  chroniclers  add  nothing  essential  to  this  record,  except 
to  give  it  a  feudal  coloring  by  translating  midwyrhta,  "fellow- 
workman,"  as  Jidelis* 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  just  what  "Cumbraland"  meant  in 

Edmund's  day.     Mr.  Freeman  says,  "I  wish  to  keep  myself  as 

clear  as  possible  from  all  mazes  as  to  the  ever  fluc- 
"  Cumbra- 
,     , ,,  tuating  boundaries  of  Strathclyde  and  Cumberland." 

But  he  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  Edmund 

conquered  and  abolished  the  kingdom  of  Strathclyde,  conferring  part 

'He  had  threatened  the  northern  coasts  of  England  soon  after  the  battle  of  Brun- 
anburh.  Athelstan  was  perhaps  unwilling  to  undertake  another  conflict  of  arms  so 
soon,  or  desired  to  "  fight  fire  with  fire."  Hence  he  secured  the  alliance  of  Eric  by 
giving  into  his  care  the  disputed  territory. 

3  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  945.     Four  MSS.  have  this  record.     Two  mention  only  the 

19 


20  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

of  it,  under  the  name  of  Cumberland  on  Malcolm  by  the  "usual 
tenure  of  faithful  service  in  war."1  Mr.  Freeman  has  no  authority 
for  this  statement.  The  chronicles  he  cites  use  the  term  Cum- 
berland, or  Cumbria.  His  statement  implies  that  Strathclyde 
and  Cumberland  were  the  same,  which  is  the  very  point  at  issue, 
and  in  regard  to  which  he  adduces  no  proof.  Mr.  Robertson  shows 
that  at  one  time  the  name  Cumbria,  or  Cumberland,  was  applied 
to  a  wide  territory  extending  at  least  from  Dumbarton  to  North 
Wales.  This  was  gradually  reduced  by  the  additions  made  to 
Northumbria,  by  the  grants  of  Egfrid  to  St.  Cuthbert,  taking  in 
the  modern  Cumberland  and  Westmoreland,  and  by  the  settle- 
ments of  the  Angles  in  Candida  Casa.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  natural  tendency  would  be  in  favor  of  a  gradual  division 
of  the  extensive  Cumbria  of  the  earlier  period  into  two  parts, 
one  English,  the  other  Scotch,  the  dividing  line  being  one  of 
nature's  own  making  —  the  Solway.  This  accords  perfectly  with 
the  history  of  this  region,  so  far  as  it  is  known,  and  is  borne  out 
by  the  fact  that  the  term  Cumberland  is  still  applied  to  the 
region  south  of  the  Solway,  while  Scottish  Cumbria,  or  Strath- 
clyde, lost  its  title  eventually  and  was  united  (about  1018  A.D.) 
with  the  northern  kingdom.  But  it  remained  as  a  semi-inde- 
pendent kingdom  under  the  control  of  a  branch  of  the  MacAlpin 
family  from  the  opening  of  the  tenth  century  to  the  reign  of 
Malcolm  II  (1005-1034  A.  D.)  English  Cumbria  was  probably 
under  the  Northumbrian  earls,  or  in  a  state  of  anarchy.  With 
its  numerous  lakes  and  its  situation  on  the  northwest  coast,  it 
formed  an  admirable  retreat  for  the  pirate  fleets  from  Ireland 
and  the  islands.  And  it  was  doubtless  of  this  nest  of  intruders  that 

Edmund  made  havoc,  delivering-  the  province  over 
Ceded  to  Mai-  .  or 

colm  I  to  Malcolm  1943-954  A.D.),  on  condition  that  he 

should  defend  it,  as  his  ally,  by  sea  and  land.2    Had 
Malcolm  been  a  vassal  of  the  English  crown,  there  would  have 

expedition  to  the  north.  Cf.  Rog.  Wend.,  Flor.  Hist.,  I,  p.  500,  with  Robertson, 
Early  Kings,  I,  p.  70,  note. 

'Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  H.,  p.  62 ;  William  Rufus,  II,  p.  545. 
•Early  Kings,  I,  p.  70. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  21 

been  no  need  to  purchase  his  alliance  at  such  a  price.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  there  is  here  no  intimation  of  any  previous 
relations  such  as  this,  nor  of  any  service  due  as  of  right  from 
the  king  of  Scots  to  the  king  of  the  English  because  of  previous 
acts  or  compacts.  It  is  only  after  this  time  that  references  to 
precedents  occur,  viz.,  when  feudal  ideas  take  shape  and  a  legal 
basis  is  sought  for  feudal  claims.  Then  it  is  that  the  language 
of  the  ordinary  incidents  of  victory  and  defeat,  of  submission  or 
alliance,  are  translated  into  feudal  terms,  and  interpreted  in  a 
way  that  the  actors  in  those  events  little  dreamed  of.  The  com- 
pact with  Malcolm  was  for  his  lifetime,  as  will  appear  presently, 
and  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  writers  before  the  feudal  age 
that  his  successors  were  involved  in  any  way.  When  Edmund 
died  in  946  A.  D.,  the  compact  was  renewed  with  Eadred.  Mr. 
Freeman  says  :  "  That  the  Scots  renewed  their  oaths  on  the  acces- 
sion of  Eadred  is  no  proof  of  hostile  feelings  on 
Scots  and 
Dane  Confused  e'tner    side."       Malmesbury's    statement    that    the 

Northumbrians  and  Scots  made  Eric  their  king  and 

suffered  a  common  punishment  by  Eadred  again  illustrates  the 

confusion  between  Scot  and   Dane  in  the  mind  of  the  English 

monk.     His  statement  is  correct  regarding  the  Northumbrians, 

but  contradicts   the   facts  of  Scottish  history   by  ignoring  the 

kingship   of  Malcolm   I.     It  entirely  lacks  the  support  of  the 

Chronicle,  which  says,  "  Eadred  harried  over  all  Northumberland, 

because   they    had    taken    Eric    for  their    king."       In   954    he 

"  assumed  the  kingdom  of  the  Northumbrians,"  having  apparently 

had  the  assistance  of  his  Scottish  allies.     As  there  is  no  further 

mention  of  the   "Scottish   oaths,"   it   seems   clear 
Reversion  of        .,,.,,       r  1   .  it         ,_, 

c     .    .     ,        in  the  light  of  later  events  that  they  were  given 

in   return  for  the  grant   of  Cumberland,   and   that 
it  was  held  by  Malcolm  I  for  his  own  lifetime  only.1 

A  charter  of  Edgar's  reign,  dated  966  A.  D.,  bears  the  sig- 
nature of  Kenneth,  "rex  Scotorum,"  and  of  Malcolm,  "rex 
Cumbrorum."     Its  spurious  character  is  noted  by  Mr.  Kemble, 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  946,  948,  954  ;  W.  Malmes.,  Gesta  Reg.,  I,  p.  162  ;  Norman 
Conq.,  I,  p.  63. 


22  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

so  that  it  affords  no  proof  that  the  Scots  still  held  the   grant 
of    Cumberland.1     Kenneth  did   not  become    king 
until  five  years  later,  971  A.  D.     As  for  Malcolm, 
Mr.  Robertson  says: 

There  could  have  been  no  '  King  of  the  Cumbrians '  at  this  time, 
for  the  grant  of  Cumberland,  made  to  Malcolm  the  First  in  945,  and 
for  which  he  renewed  his  oaths  upon  the  accession  of  Edred,  ceased 
upon  the  death  of  the  Scottish  King,  and  the  feudal  subinfeudation  of 
that  province  as  a  fief  held  by  the  Scottish  Tanist  is  totally  contrary  to 
the  real  history  of  the  period.  Donald,  son  of  the  Eogan  who 
appears  to  have  fallen  at  Brunanburgh,  was  King  of  Strathclyde  during 
the  whole  of  Edgar's  reign,  dying  in  the  same  year  as  the  English 
King,  whilst  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  ;  and  if  the  '  rex  Cumbrorum  ' 
means  'King  of  Strathclyde,'  no  Malcolm  could  have  appeared  at 
Chester*  in  that  capacity.  Malcolm,  King  of  the  Cumbrians,  is 
indubitably  a  myth.3 

The  subsequent  history  also  conflicts  with  the  theory  that 
the  king  of  Scots  retained  the  grant  of  Cumberland  after  the 
death  of  Malcolm  I.  Kenneth  II  (971-995)  on  his  accession 
"  statim  predavit  Britanniam  ex  parte."  He  threw  up  earth- 
works at  the  fordable  places  along  the  Forth,  and  carried  his 
ravages  "ad  Stammoir,  ad  Cluiam  et  ad  Stang  na  Deram."4 
Ethelred  also  "went  to  Cumberland  and  ravaged  it  very  nigh  all." 
No  mention  is  made  of  the  Scots  by  a  single  authority  till  John 
of  Fordun.  He  seized  on  Cumberland  as  a  convenient  means  of 
escaping  the  claims  of  the  English  chroniclers,  and  made  it  the 
counterpart  of  the  later  earldom  of  Huntingdon.  He  explained 
Ethelred's  invasion  on  the  ground  that  the  king  of  the  Cum- 
brians (?)  had  refused  to  pay  his  share  of  the  Danegeld.  Mr. 
Freeman  admits  Fordun  is  not  an  authority  "  of  the  first  order," 
but  does  not  scruple  to  base  his  argument  upon  his  testimony. 
There  is  not  a  shred  of  evidence  elsewhere  to  show  any  con- 
nection between  the  king   of   Scots    and    Cumberland    at    this 

» Cod.  Dip.,  No.  519.  3  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  72,  92,  note. 

9  In  Edgar's  royal  progress  on  the  Dee. 

*  Innet'  Essay,  Ap.  3.  Stanemor  is  in  Cumberland  near  its  junction  with  West- 
moreland, Northumberland,  and  Durham. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  23 

time.  Henry  of  Huntingdon  (An.  1000)  says  Ethelred  went 
into  Cumberland  "  ubi  maxima  ma-nsio  Dacorum  erat,  vicitque 
Dacos  bello  maximo."  Had  either  Cumberland  or  Lothian  been 
held  of  the  English  crown,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  Ethel- 
red  would  have  demanded  the  Danegeld  from  them,  and  the 
fact  would  have  been  noted  by  the  earlier  English  chroniclers.1 

Simeon  of  Durham  adds  further  proof  when  he  describes  the 
ravages  of  Malcolm  III  in  Teesdale  and  up  and  down  the  coast. 
His  army  was  led  through  Cumberland  and  then  eastward,  avoid- 
ing Northumbria.  He  describes  the  ravages  of  Earl  Cospatric 
in  Cumberland,  and  expressly  states  that  it  was  under  Malcolm's 
dominion  "non  jure  possessa  sed  violenter  subjugata." 2  The 
weight  of  evidence  is  certainly  against  the  theory  that  Cumber- 
land was  ontinuously  held  of  the  English  king  by  the  king  of 
Scots  as  a  feudal  fief.  Whether  it  was  withdrawn  because  of 
Malcolm's  lack  of  fidelity,  or  for  other  reasons,  is  not  stated. 
But  it  is  significant  that  this  should  have  been  the  period  in 
which  Malcolm's  successor,  Indulf  (son  of  Constan- 
tine  II),  began  the  extension  of  Scottish  domin- 
ion toward  the  Tweed.  It  may  well  be  that  this  was  in  retalia- 
tion for  the  withdrawal  of  Cumberland  on  the  death  of  Malcolm 
I.  Whatever  the  cause,  it  is  certain  that  Indulf  (954-962) 
invaded  Lothian,  and  that  Edinburgh,  "the  frontier  fortress  of 
the  great  Northumbrian  Bretwalda,"  passed  from  English  to 
Scottish  control.3 

This    is   the   first  definite  step    toward    the  acquirement  of 

Lothian.     None  of  the  early  chroniclers  state  how   the   cession 

rj_   _     .  came  about.     The    St.    Albans    chroniclers,    Wen- 

Its  Cession 

dover  and  Wallingford,  wrote  not  earlier  than   the 

thirteenth  century.    They  give  a  minute  account  of  how  Kenneth 

II  (991-995)  was  brought  to  Edgar,  and  of  the  arrangements  by 

which  the   transfer  of  Lothian  was  accomplished.     Full  details 

* A.-S.  Chron.,  An.   1000;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  72,  note;  II,  pp.   186,  387;  Nor- 
man Conquest,  I,  p.  300.     Ap.  H,  FF.     Hume  bases  his  narrative  on  Fordun. 
a  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  pp.  190,  191. 
3  Innes  Essay,  Ap.  3 ;  Freeman,  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  II. 


24  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

of  the  feudal  homage  to  be  rendered  and  of  the  provisions  for 
the  progress  of  Kenneth  to  Edgar's  court  are  not  overlooked. 
Simeon  of  Durham,  who  wrote  at  least  a  century  earlier  than 
these  chroniclers,  is  quite  ignorant  of  their  story,  and  makes  a 
very  different  statement.  Malcolm  II  (1005-1034)  invaded 
Northumbria.  The  old  Ealdorman  Waltheof  shut  himself  in 
behind  the  walls  of  Bamborough.  But  his  son  Uchtred  took 
the  field  and  not  only  defeated  the  Scots,  but  decorated  the 
walls  of  Durham  with  the  heads  of  the  slain.1  Some  years 
later  Uchtred  was  murdered,  and  his  cowardly  brother  Eadulf, 
fearing  the  vengeance  of  the  Scots,  ceded  Lothian  to  them.  The 
passage  reads  : 

Quo  [Uchtredo]  occiso,  frater  ipsius  Eadulf,  cognomento  Cudel, 
ignavus  et  valde  et  timidus  ei  successit  in  comitatum.  Timens  autem 
ne  Scotti  mortem  suorum,  quos  frater  ejus,  ut  supradictum  est,  occi- 
derat,  in  se  vindicarent,  totum  Lodoneium  ob  satisfactionem  et  firmam 
concordiam  eis  donavit.  Hoc  modo  Lodoneium  adjectum  est  regno 
Scottorum. 

The  editor  of  the  Rolls  Series  says  of  the  De  Obs.  Dun.: 
It  is  an  authentic  though  fragmentary  record  of  the  wild  and  mis- 
erable age  of  Ethelred.  .  .  .     The  date  of  writing  seems  to  have  been 
about  1090. 

These  are  the  sources.  The  question  of  the  cession  has  been 
fully  discussed  on  both  sides.2     Mr.  Freeman  concedes 

....  the  infinite  superiority  of  Simeon,  our  very  best  authority  for 
Northumbrian  affairs,  over  two  late  and  often  inaccurate  writers  like 
John  of  Wallingford  and  Roger  of  Wendover.  .  .  .  Simeon's  state- 
ment proves  that  some  cession  of  Lothian  was  made  by  Eadwulf,  and  if 
so,  we  can  hardly  be  wrong  in  setting  it  down  as  a  result  of  the  battle 
of  Carham.     (1028  A.  D.) 

The  stories  of  John  and  Roger,  however,  support  Mr.  Free- 
man's theory  of  the  feudal  dependence  of  Scotland  on  her 
Imperial  Lord,  and  he,  therefore,  seeks  with  his  wonted 
ingenuity,  to  weave  out  of  them  something  to  his  purpose.     But 

1  On  the  date  cf.  Sim.  Dun.,  I,  pp.  215-16  with  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  92. 

2 Sim.  Dun.,  I,  p.  218  ;  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  I;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  95,  96  ; 
II,  pp.  390,  399. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  25 

the  legends  and  fabrications  which  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
later  chroniclers,  centering  about  the  reign  of  Edgar  as  one  of 
several  foci,  have  been  already  referred  to,  and  are  too  well 
known  to  need  further  characterization.  The  monastic  writers 
knew  no  bounds  when  singing  the  praises  of  those  who  had 
been  generous  to  their  houses  —  of  whom  Edgar  was  one  of  the 
first.  Richard  of  Cirencester  says  of  Edgar's  reign:  "God 
helping  him,  he  had  the  whole  island  in  his  hand,  and  Scotland, 
Wales,  and  Cumbria,  gladly  ran  to  submit  themselves  to  him." 
Mr.  Green  says, 

....  side  by  side,  two,  with  this  statelier  song  [of  Athelstan's  day], 
we  catch  glimpses  of  a  wilder  and  more  romantic  upgrowth  of  popular 
verse,  which  wrapped  in  an  atmosphere  of  romance  the  lives  of  kings 
such  as  Athelstan  and  Eadgar. 

These  ballads  were  preserved  down  to  the  twelfth  century, 
when 

....  they  were  introduced  by  the  writers  of  the  time  into  our  own 
history  much  to  its  confusion.  .  .  .  Historically  these  legends  stand 
on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  romances  embedded  in  Malmesbury.1 

It  is,  therefore,  unwarrantable  to  base  an  argument  on  such 
questionable  authorities,  especially  when  they  disagree  with  the 
definite,  trustworthy  statement  of  an  authority  like  Simeon.  It 
is  objected  that  in  his  account  of  the  battle  of  Carham  the  Eng- 
lish forces  are  represented  as  coming  from  the  region  between 
the  Tees  and  the  Tweed,  and  that  it  should  have  included  the 
people  of  Lothian  as  well,  if  that  province  had  not  already  been 
ceded  to  the  king  of  Scots.2  But  it  is  only  necessary  to  remem- 
ber that  the  Scots  took  the  stronghold  of  Edinburgh  during  the 
reign  of  Indulf,  and  had  held  it  for  some  fifty  years,  during 
which  they  had  been  steadily  pushing  southward.  Lothian 
thus  became  a  border  territory,  harried  from  both  sides.  The 
march    of    Malcolm's    host    to    Carham,   moreover,    must    have 

1  Ric.  de  Cirenc,  II,  p.  91 ;  Conq.  of  Eng.,  pp.  284,  310,  note ;  W.  Malmes.,  Gesta 
Reg.,  Ad.  an.,  and  Introd.  (Stubbs),  p.  lxvi.  Malmesbury  is  the  first  exponent  of  pop- 
ular legend  in  history. 

2  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  LLL. 


26  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

caused  the  people  of  this  district  either  to  join  him  or  to  remain 
neutral. 

Thus,  either  by  cession  through  the  fears  of  Eadulf  Cudel,or 
by  conquest,  Lothian  passed  under  the  dominion  of  the  king  of 
Scots.  It  may  well  be  asked  how  two  feudatories  could  annex 
or  resign  territories  without  the  consent,  or  remonstrance,  of 
their  overlord,  and  the  whole  transaction  points  to  the  fact  that 
Malcolm  could  not  have  been  a  vassal  of  the  English  crown  at 
this  time. 

Cnut,  on  his  return  from  Rome,  some  fourteen  years  later, 
made  an  expedition  to  the  north,  which  may  have  had  some  ref- 
erence to  the  transfer  of  Lothian.  The  authority 
Cnut  for  this  expedition  is  the  Chronicle,  under  the  year 

1031  A.  D.:1  "The  Scots'  king  Malcolm  submitted 
to  him  [Cnut]  and  became  his  man,  but  held  that  only  a  little 
while."  This  is  from  MS.  D,  which,  after  1016  A.  D.,  is  written 
in  several  hands,  and  is  especially  full  on  events  relating  to  Mer- 
cia  and  Northumberland.  Two  other  MSS.,  E  and  F,  one  in 
the  same  hand  to  11 22  A.  D.,  the  other  apparently  of  the  twelfth 
century,  add  "and  two  other  kings,  Maelbaethe  and  Jehmarc." 
Their  addition  of  these  names  and  their  omission  of  the  phrase 
"he  held  that  [allegiance]  only  a  little  while,"  render  their  tes- 
timony suspicious.  Mr.  Robertson  has  shown  that  Macbeth  was 
not  even  Mormaor  of  Moray  till  the  death  of  his  kinsman  Gil- 
comgain,  in  1032.2  In  any  case,  the  results  of  the  meeting,  on 
Scotland,  were  as  transitory  as  the  passing  clouds.  There  is  no 
intimation  that  the  expedition  imposed  any  penalty  on  Malcolm 
or  in  any  way  curtailed  the  territories  he  had  annexed  to  his 
kingdom.  And  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  the  Dane, 
whose  rule  in  England  was  so  distinctly  an  interlude,  could  trans- 
mit any  feudal  right  in  Scotland  to  his  successors.  Certainly 
Denmark  and  Norway  did  not  so  pass,  and  claims  to  Scotland 

•This  date  is  questioned  by  both  Robertson  and  Freeman,  1027-28  preferred. 

•Early  Kings,  I,  p.  97 ;  II,  p.  400.  That  the  expression  "he  held  that  only  a  little 
while  "  does  not  refer  to  Malcolm's  death  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  chroniclers 
use  the  phrase  often,  and  always  with  reference  to  a  rejection  of  allegiance.  (A.-S. 
Chron.,  An.  947,  1091,  etc. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  27 

could  only  be  made  good  in  future  by  force  of  arms  or  new  com- 
pacts. 

Malcolm   II,  whom   the   Irish   annalists    entitle  "Lord    and 
Father  of  the  West,"  had  pushed  his  dominions  southward  to  the 

Tweed.  The  line  of  Scoto -British  princes  in  Strath- 
Malcolm  II,  dyde  having  failed  with  Eogan"the  Bald,"  who 
.  fought  with    Malcolm    at    Carham,    that    province 

seems  to  have  passed  to  the  family  of  Malcolm,  in 
the  person  of  his  son  Duncan.  Malcolm  was  able,  whether  by 
violence  or  otherwise,  to  set  aside  the  prevailing  custom  and  to 
secure  the  succession  of  Duncan  as  king  of  Scotland.     With  the 

death  of  Malcolm  in  1034,  the  direct  male  line  of 

Kenneth  I  became  extinct.  The  succession  should 
Annexed 

have  passed  to  the   line  of  Duff,  had  not  the  heir 

perished,  probably  by  foul  means,  in  1033.  This  act  left  the 
rights  of  the  crown  to  be  transferred  through  the  female  line,  by 
which  the  royal  rights  had  been  originally  inherited,  and  occa- 
sioned a  bloody  strife  between  the  families  of 
Break  in  Atholl  and   Moray,  to  which  Duncan  and  Macbeth 

respectively  belonged.  The  legitimate  successor 
Duncan,  1034-  , 

•«*«  a  Tk  was  Lulach,  whose  mother  Macbeth  married,  thus 

1040  A.  JJ.  ' 

u^  becoming  the  guardian  of  Lulach  during  his  minor- 
ity. These  claims  had  been  set  aside  in  favor  of  Malcolm's 
daughter's  son,  Duncan,  who  reigned  from  1034  to  1040.  He 
was  opposed  by  Thorfin,  son  of  a  second  daughter  of  Malcolm, 
who  married  one  of  the  jarls  of  Orkney.  The  youthful  Duncan 
was  unsuccessful  in  his  expedition  against  Thorfin,  as  he  had  also 
been  in  a  foray  into  Northumberland,  and  was  treacherously 
slain,  "in  the  smith's  bothy,"  near  one  of  his  unfortunate  battle- 
fields, by  his  rival    Macbeth,  who   then  seized   the 

,1040-  crown  £or  himself.1    Duncan  left  two  sons,  Malcolm 
1058  A.  D. 

u  Ceanmore    and     Donald    Bane.     Fordun    is    poor 

authority  for  the   theory  of  a   relationship  between   them   and 

Siward,  earl  of  Northumbria.     Mr.  Robertson  says : 

The  flight  of  Duncan's  children  —  mere  infants  —  one  to  Cumbria, 

'Sim.  Dun.,  I,  p.  90;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  1 10;  Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  55. 


2 8  ANGLO-SCO TCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TIONS 

the  other  to  the  Isles,  is  a  fiction  founded  on  the  ideas  of  the  time 
when  it  first  appears,  three  or  four  centuries  later.  They  probably 
remained  amongst  their  hereditary  partizans  in  Atholl  and  the  southern 
provinces,  occupying  the  same  position  which  their  cousin  Lulach  had 
done  during  the  reign  of  their  father — the  position  of  the  head  of  the 
Hy  Nial,  when  Brian  Boru  achieved  the  sovereignty  of  Ireland ;  or  of 
a  Duke  of  Bavaria  or  Austria,  in  the  olden  time,  when  another  mag- 
nate had  been  elected  to  the  empire.1 

This  opinion  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  Malcolm 
reigned  till  1093  A.  D.,  when  he  died  in  battle,  apparently  in  the 
prime  of  manhood.  He  must,  therefore,  have  been  quite  young 
in  1040,  the  date  of  his  father's  murder.  Moreover,  it  would 
have  been  quite  contrary  to  the  custom  of  "fosterage,"  which 
prevailed  among  the  Picts  and  Scots,  for  a  member  of  the  royal 
family  to  leave  his  own  kinsmen  and  followers  for  an  Anglo- 
Danish  earl.     By  this  custom 

....  each  'full  born'  son  having  a  claim  upon  the  inheritance  of 
his  father  ....  was  placed  in  the  family  of  a  dependant,  who  regarded 
such  a  charge  as  a  mark  of  the  highest  confidence  and  honor;  and 
even  in  the  17th  century,  men  of  rank  and  station  in  the  Scot- 
tish Highlands  still  esteemed  it  a  privilege  to  educate  in  this  manner 
one  of  the  children  of  the  head  of  their  lineage.* 

In  1045  an  attempt  was  made  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  Dun- 
can's children,  by  their  aged  grandfather,  the  abbot  of  Dunkeld, 

which  proved,  however,  premature.  Nine  years 
Is  Defeated        later  Macbeth   was    attacked     by   Si  ward,   earl    of 

Northumbria,  and  put  to  flight.  Two  MSS.  of  the 
Chronicle  record  this  event.  No  mention  is  made,  however,  of 
Malcolm  or  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  nor  of  the  object  of  the 

expedition,  but  the  facts  that  Macbeth  escaped  and 
'      that  great  booty  was  captured  are  explicitly  noted. 

Of  Macbeth's  escape  there  can  be  no  doubt.3  He 
maintained    himself    in   the    kingdom   till    1058,   and    after   his 

"Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  55  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  122,  note. 

2  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  34. 

3  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1054  (Cott.  Tiber.,  B.  I ;  Cott.  Tiber.  B.,  IV) ;  Norman  Conq.,  II, 
p.  665  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  122 ;  Bain,  I,  p.  xvii,  note. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  29 

death  his  ward  Lulach  kept  Malcolm  from  the  throne  sev- 
eral months  longer.  The  Anglo-Norman  writers  consistently 
make  this  record  a  part  of  the  chain  of  historical  testimony 
whereby  the  feudal  dependence  of  Scotland  is  maintained. 
Fordun,  in  the  same  spirit,  tries  to  maintain  the 
Feudal  s-^e    Qf    ^e    Scots.      A    good    illustration    of    his 

authority  is  found  in  the  statement  that  the  Scots 
Apparent  J 

in  Chronicles      ^e<^  a^  tne   ^rs*"   sounc^   °*  Malcolm's   trumpet — a 
very  different  picture  from  the  hard  fight  described 
by    the    English    and    Irish    writers.     Florence    of   Worcester 
writes  : 

Siward,  the  mighty  Duke  of  Northumbria,  by  order  of  the  King, 
entered  Scotland  with  an  army  of  cavalry  and  a  strong  fleet,  and  fought 
a  battle  with  Macbeth  King  of  the  Scots ;  and  many  thousands  of  the 
Scots,  and  all  the  Normans,  of  whom  mention  was  made  above,  being 
slain,  he  put  him  to  flight,  and  established  Malcolm,  son  of  the  King  of 
the  Cumbrians,  as  king,  "  ut  rex  jusserat."  * 

A  careful  study  of  this  passage  seems   to  justify  the   belief 

that  Florence,  compiling  his  account  from  several  sources,  is  not 

entirely  free  from  error.     While   he   mentions  the 

establishment  of  Malcolm  as  a  reason  for  the  expe- 
Influence  ...  .  .  .....         .      .. 

_    ,,     ,       dition,  the  entire  narrative  implies  that  the  JNorman 
in  Scotland  '  r 

favorites  of  Edward  who  had  taken  refuge  with 
Macbeth  were  the  true  cause  of  it.2  He  describes  their  expul- 
sion from  England,  and  apparently  takes  pains  to  call  attention 
to  them  again  in  his  account  of  the  battle  with  Macbeth.  The 
feeling  of  the  English  against  them  was  intense.  They  had  by 
their  intrigues  compelled  Godwine  to  go  into  exile.3  On  his 
return  the  situation  was  reversed.  But  in  1054  Godwine  had 
been  dead  upwards  of  a  year,  so  that  this  expedition  could  not 
have  been  the  result  of  his  personal  hostility  toward  his  enemies. 
And  of  Harold  Mr.  Freeman  says : 

His  policy  of  conciliation  would  forbid  him  to  be  needlessly  harsh 

'Ad.  an.  1054. 

aSim.  Dun.  has  no  independent  record  of  these  events. 

3  Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  125;  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  400. 


30  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

even  to  a  Norman,  and  he  had  every  motive  for  dealing  as  tenderly  as 
possible  with  all  the  wishes  and  prejudices  of  the  King. 

Hence  there  would  be  no  reason  for  an  order  to  issue  from 
King  Edward  or  Earl  Harold  which  would  devote  the  Normans 
to  total  destruction.  Why  should  Edward  attempt  to  aid  a 
claimant  to  the  Scottish  throne  at  their  expense  ?  Macbeth  had 
been  ruling  fourteen  years.  His  reign  was  confessedly  able 
and  prosperous.1  There  is  no  indication  of  any  feudal  or  hostile 
relation  toward  his  southern  neighbor.  Why  should  Edward 
order  the  northern  earl  to  attack  him  just  at  a  time  when  the 
court  favorites  were  finding  refuge  there  ?  It  would  seem  more 
reasonable  that  Siward  acted  on  his  own  responsibility ;  that  the 
flight  of  the  Normans  and  the  national  hatred  of  them  afforded 
an  excellent  pretext  for  an  attempt  to  win  back  the  ancient 
bounds  of  his  earldom  of  Northumbria.  If  there  was  a  rela- 
tionship2 between  himself  and  Malcolm,  it  would  furnish  an 
additional  reason  for  intervention  on  purely  family  grounds.  In 
any  event,  Macbeth  continued  his  reign  till  1058,  and  as  Siward 
died  in  1055,  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  established  Malcolm  as 
king.     In  general,  it  should  be  noted : 

1.  The  extent  to  which  the  orders  of  the  king  had  weight  at 
this  period,  especially  in  the  north,  is  very  questionable.  Royal 
writs  during  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Confessor  were  very  com- 
mon in  Wessex  and  East  Anglia,  but  only  one  crossed  the 
Humber,  addressed  to  a  Northumbrian  earl,  and  that  was  in  the 
days  of  Tostig.3 

2.  The  jealousy  which  the  great  earls  felt  toward  each  other 
would  render  concerted  action  on  their  part  unlikely. 

3.  Malcolm  was  not  "regis  Cumbrorum  filium"  at  this  time. 
His  father  Duncan  was  very  likely  placed  over  Strathclyde  by 
Malcolm  II.  But  Duncan  had  become  king  of  the  Scots  twenty 
years  before  the  invasion  of  1054.  The  statement  seems  to  be 
based  on  the  erroneous  belief,  which  the  English  chroniclers  had, 

'Norman  Conq.,  II,  pp.  55,  367,  369;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  121. 

2  Celtic  Scot,  I,  p.  408.    Skene  gives  no  authority  for  his  statement. 

3  Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  55. 


THE  CESSIONS  OF  CUMBERLAND  AND  LOTHIAN  31 

that  Macbeth  directly  succeeded  Malcolm  II  in  1034,  instead  of 
Duncan  in  1040,  and  is  a  clear  evidence  of  the  composite  and  in 
part  unreliable  nature  of  the  record  of  Florence.1 

4.  Malcolm  III  (Ceanmore)  became  famous  in  English  as 
well  as  Scottish  history.  He  was,  moreover,  the  first  to  receive 
a  strictly  feudal  holding  from  an  English  king.  Legend  and 
romance  had  even  in  the  days  of  Florence  been  busy  with  the 
names  of  Duncan,  Macbeth,  and  Malcolm.2  As  Florence  read 
his  early  English  sources  and  compared  them  with  this  legend- 
ary material,  it  was  easy  to  attribute  to  the  weakness  of 
Edward's  reign  the  strength  exhibited  by  the  Conqueror,  by 
William  Rufus,  and  by  Henry  I.  It  was  easy  to  infer  that 
Siward's  expedition,  unaccounted  for  by  the  Chronicle,  must 
have  been  by  the  order  of  the  king,  to  unseat  the  usurper  Mac- 
beth and  establish  Malcolm,  the  vassal  later  of  William  the 
Conqueror — and  therefore  by  inference  of  Edward  the  Confessor. 
But  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  of  homage  paid  by  Scottish 
kings  during  the  reign  of  Edward,  nor  of  any  feudal  relation 
between  the  two  kingdoms.3 

With  Florence  of  Worcester  the  feudalizing  influence  in  the 
chronicles  has  only  just  begun  to  appear.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
as  to  its  purpose.  It  often  discloses,  and  at  the  same  time 
defeats  its  aim  and  end,  by  its  gross  exaggeration  of  truth,  its 
perversions  of  known  facts,  or  its  open  fraud  and  forgery.  This 
throws  doubt  on  the  whole  plea.  Henry  of  Huntingdon  relates 
how  Siward  sent  his  son  into  Scotland  to  conquer  it.  The  son 
having  met  his  death,  the  father  advances  into  Scotland  and, 
after  defeating  the  king  in  battle,  "regnum  totum  destruxit, 
destructum  sibi  subjugavit" !  He  is  ignorant  of  any  order  of  the 
king,  and  explains  the  invasion  as  one  for  the  acquirement  of 
territory.  His  extreme  statement  is  entirely  lacking  in  any  his- 
torical basis.     William  of  Malmesbury  adds  another  element  of 

1  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  p.  158. 

'  Cf.  Shakespeare.  It  appears  that  "  the  meek  and  hoary "  Duncan  had  not 
reached  his  prime.  Siward  also  "  was  a  hero  whose  history  had  a  mythical  element 
about  it  from  the  beginning."     (Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  374.) 

3  Florence  is  not  above  "  an  unsuccessful  guess."    (Norman  Conq.,  IV,  Note  R.) 


3  2  ANGLO -SCO  TCH  FE  UDAL  RELA  T10NS 

fiction  in  his  statement  that  Macbeth  was  despoiled  of  life  as  well 
as  of  kingdom.      Roger  of  Wendover  gives  the  finishing  touch : 

Edwardus  regnum  Scotiae  dedit  Malcolmo,  filio  regis  Cumbrorum, 
de  se  tenendum.1 

After   the   death   of   Siward  in   1035,   Godwin's   son  Tostig 

received  the  earldom  of  Northumbria.     Some  sort 

Malcolm  III       Q£  aiiiance    or  friendship    seems    to    have    existed 

s  lg        between   him   and    Malcolm.     Simeon  of    Durham 

writes  : 

Interim  rex  Scottorum  Malcolmus  sui  conjurati  fratris,  scilicet 
comitis  Tostii,  comitatum  ferociter  depopulatus  est,  violata  pace  Sancti 
Cuthberti  in  Lindisfarnensi  insula. 

This  was  in  1061, 

....  Edwardo  regnante,  quando  Tosti  comes  Eboracensis  profectus 
Romam  fuerat. 

Of  this  "  sworn  brotherhood  "  Mr.  Freeman  says,  "  This  was 
a  tie  by  which  reconciled  enemies  often  sought  to  bind  one 
another  to  special  friendship."  2  He  considers  that  the  tie  must 
have  been  formed  some  time  between  1055  and  1061.  It  seems 
most  reasonable  to  infer  that  it  was  soon  after  Malcolm's  acces- 
sion to  the  crown  in  1058;  also  that  it  was  sought  by  Tostig 
rather  than  Malcolm,  who  was  now  secure  in  his  rights.  It  is 
only  thus  that  Malcolm's  raid  over  the  border,  for  which  Tostig 
in  no  way  inflicted  any  retribution,  can  be  explained. 

The  hour  of  the  conquest  is  at  hand.  Invaluable  as  the 
works  of  the  monastic  chroniclers  are  to  the  historian,  it  is  a 
relief  to  turn  from  their  oft-conflicting  tales  to  the  more  trust- 
worthy records  of  the  feudal  era  which  now  dawns  in  its  fullness 
upon  England. 

*  Hen.  Hunt.,  p.  194 ;  W.  Malmes.,  Ad.  an.;  Flor.,  Hist.,  I,  p.  573.  Roger  died 
1237  A.  D. 

aSim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  pp.  174,  221;  Norman  Conq.,  II,  p.  392. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  NORMAN  KINGS  IN  SCOTLAND. 

The  reign  of  the  Normans  in  England  marks  the  establish- 
ment of  a  definite  feudal  policy,  consistently  followed  by  the 
kings   of   England  and   Scotland    till  the  days   of 

eg  nn   g  Edward  I.     Its  rapid  and  marvelous  development 

Definite  Feudal  •  r   ,  •  /. 

Policv  was  rac"cally  affected  by  the  allied  policy  of  inter- 

marriage   between    the    royal    houses    of    the    two 
realms,  hitherto  strongly  antagonistic. 

The  court   of  the   king  of  Scots,  like  that  of  Flanders  or 

Denmark,  had  often  proved  a  refuge  for  those  compelled  by  the 

chance  of  war  or  by  political  intrigue  to  flee  from 

n  uence     y     jrnpriand       In  the  summer  of   1068  A.   D.1  such  a 
Inter-Marriage   ,...,.. 

band    of  exiles,    having  aroused    the  suspicion   of 

William  the  Conqueror,  or  fearing  his  wrath,  had  sought  refuge 

with  Malcolm  III,  in  the  land  of  the  Scots.    With  Merlesweyne, 

Cospatric,  and  other  influential   leaders   of  the   English   party, 

came  Edgar  Atheling,  attended  by  his  mother  and  two  sisters, 

Christina  and  Margaret.     The  Princess  Margaret  speedily  won 

the  heart  of  the  Scottish  king,  and  the  union  of  the  lines  of  Cer- 

dic   and   McAlpin   gave   to   the   Scots   their   first   claim  to   the 

English  crown.     It  was  an  event  of  the  greatest  moment,  not 

only  because  of  its  immediate  effect  on  the  welfare  of  Scotland, 

but  also  because  of  the  far-reaching  influences  which  take  their 

source  from  it,     Editha,  a  daughter  of  this  royal  pair,  became 

the  wife  of  Henry  I  of  England.  Three  sons,  Edgar,  Alexander, 

and  David,  destined  to  attain  the  kingship  and  to  control  the 

national  policy,  grew  up  under  their  care,  acquiring  daily  from 

their   mother  English  sympathies   and   tastes.     It   will   not  be 

lFL  Wig.;  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  An.  1068.     On  date  cf.  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  130, 
note. 

33 


34  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

strange,  therefore,  under  this  bond  of  blood-relationship,  to  find 
heirs  to  the  Scottish  crown  maintaining  intimate  relations  with 
their  kinsfolk  at  the  English  court.  But  even  under  the  great 
Edward,  when  the  drift  of  the  nobility  was  almost  wholly 
in  favor  of  submission  to  his  suzerainty,  the  Scots  themselves, 
as  a  people,  constantly  preserve  their  spirit  of  independence, 
their  purpose  to  acknowledge  no  foreign  overlordship  in  the 
affairs  of  their  kingdom. 

The  marriage  of  Margaret  and  Malcolm  bound  the  king  of 
Scots  to  his  brother-in-law,  Edgar  Atheling,  identifying  him 
with  the  efforts  of  the  English  to  throw  off  the  Conqueror's 
yoke,  and  restore  their  native  dynasty.  But  apparently  he  did 
not  directly  co-operate  in  the  combined  attack  of  Danes 
and  English  upon  York  (1069).  Nor  did  William  extend  his 
ravages   beyond   the  Tyne.1     On  the  return  of  the  Conqueror 

to  the  south,  however,  Malcolm  crossed  the  border. 

Holding  Cumberland  by  right  of  conquest,"  he 
E    land  passed  through  it,  and  then,  turning  eastward   as 

already  noted,  ravaged  the  valley  of  the  Tees  to 
the  coast.  Cospatric,  who  but  a  short  time  before  had  found 
shelter  and  welcome  at  the  Scottish  court,  had  made  his  peace 
again  with  William,  and  had  bought  a  title  to  the  earldom  of 
Northumberland.  Forgetting  Malcolm's  kindness,  he  now 
invaded  Cumberland,  carried  off  large  booty,  and  shut  himself 
up  in  the  castle  of  Bamborough.  Malcolm's  revenge  was  sec- 
ond only  to  the  terrible  punishment  which  the  Conqueror 
inflicted  on  the  north.  The  chronicler  of  Durham  dilates 
on  the  atrocities  committed,  and  declares  that  "even  to  this 
day"  not  a  hovel  can  be  found  in  Scotia  without  slaves  of 
English  blood.3  It  is  a  little  strange  that  the  English  over- 
lord (?)  should  have  allowed  his  vassal  to  take  such  liberties 
with   English   subjects,   and  that  a  restoration  of  the  captives 

1  A.-S.  Chron.;  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  An.  1069. 

2  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  p.  191.  Erat  enimeo  tempore  Cumbreland  sub  regis 
Malcolmi  dominio,  non  jure  possessa  sed  violenter  subjugata. 

3 Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  II.,  pp.  190-2. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  35 

should  not  have  been  required.    The  invasion  was,  however,  not 

forgotten,  and  in  1072  A.  D.  William  set  out  for  Scotland  —  not 

to  punish  a  rebellious  vassal  or  require  a  restoration 

Meeting  of         Qf  captives,  but  to  secure  his  northern  border  against 

attack  by  a  foreign  foe.  It  is  unlikely  that  the  Eng-- 
Maloolmlll,  ./  °  ,         ,     , 

2  hsh  exiles  were  here  at  this  time,  though  they  may 

have  fled  on  William's  approach,  as  Edgar  returned 
from  Flanders  to  Scotland  in  1074. x  The  record  of  the  meet- 
ing between  Malcolm  and  William  is  brief  : 

In  this  year  King  William  led  a  naval  force  and  a  land  force  to 
Scotland,  and  lay  about  that  land  with  ships  on  the  sea  side  ;  and  him- 
self with  his  land-force  went  in  over  the  ford,  and  he  there  found 
naught  for  which  they  were  the  better."  And  King  Malcolm  came  and 
made  peace  with  King  William,  and  gave  hostages  and  was  his  man  ; 
and  the  king  went  home  with  all  his  force.3 

The  brief  record  gives  no  clue  as  to  that  for  which  Malcolm 
became  the  man  of  the  Conqueror.  Later  events,  however, 
throw  some  light  on  the  question. 

In  1079  Malcolm  came  into  England  "with  a  large  force, 
and  harried  Northumberland  until  he  came  to  the  Tyne,  and 
Subsequent  slew  many  hundred  men ;  and  led  home  many 
Invasions  of  treasures,  and  precious  things,  and  men  in  cap- 
England  tivity." 4  As  William  was  fighting  with  his  son 
Robert  in  Normandy,  this  raid  may  have  been  prompted  by 
Malcolm's  friendship  for  the  duke,  or  simply  by  a  desire  for 
plunder.  It  illustrates  how  lightly  the  feudal  oath  rested  on 
men's  consciences  in  these  days  —  Malcolm  was  no  exception — 
and  how  little  real  significance  it  had  for  the  king  of  Scots  and 
his  people.  In  1080  William  and  Robert  were  reconciled  to 
each   other,  and  the  duke  was  sent  against  Malcolm.     But  the 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1075. 

"  Possibly  referring  to  the  escape  of  Edgar  and  his  English  followers.  The  cross- 
ing was  probably  at  the  fords  of  the  Forth,  fortified  by  Kenneth  II  in  the  days 
of  Edgar.     Fl.  Wig.  says  the  meeting  was  "  in  loco  qui  dicitur  Abernitbici." 

3  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1073. 

*A.-S.  Chron.,  Fl.  Wig.,  Ad.  an. 


36  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

expedition  was  a  failure.1  Sir  Francis  Palgrave  tries  to  prove 
that  such  an  expedition  occurred  in  1068-9.  He  says  that 
Malcolm  refused  obedience  to  William  the  Conqueror,  who  then 
sent  Robert  to  enforce  it.  The  military  tenants  were  summoned, 
among  whom  was  Adelelm,  abbot  of  Abingdon.  Robert  was 
instructed  to  offer  peace  to  the  Scots  in  case  of  obedience,  other- 
wise war.  Malcolm  met  the  English  forces  in  Lothian,  and 
acknowledged  that  the  dominion  of  Scotland  was  subject  to  the 
crown  of  England.  The  story  is  based  on  the  Book  of  Abing- 
don (compiled  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Henry  III).2 

"This  important  transaction,"  says  Palgrave,  "which  is  related 
with  great  obscurity  by  Orderic  Vitalis  (p.  511),  is  told  clearly 
and  distinctly  in  the  book  of  Abingdon.  In  consequence  of  the 
abbot  being  personally  present,  the  compiler  of  that  most 
authentic  and  valuable  volume  was,  without  doubt,  better 
acquainted  with  the  circumstances  than  other  writers  could  be, 
who  had  not  the  same  sources  of  information."3  The  obscure 
passage  from  Orderic,  which  Palgrave  tries  to  elucidate  with  the 
Book  of  Abingdon,  is  as  follows : 

The  bishop  of  Durham  [Aegelwina],  also,  being  reconciled  to  King 
William,  became  the  mediator  for  peace  with  the  king  of  the  Scots, 
and  was  the  bearer  into  Scotland  of  the  terms  offered  by  William. 
Though  the  aid  of  Malcolm  had  been  solicited  by  the  English,  and  he 
had  prepared  to  come  to  their  succor  with  a  strong  force,  yet  when  he 
heard  what  the  envoy  had  to  propose  with  respect  to  a  peace,  he  remained 
quiet,  and  joyfully  sent  back  ambassadors  in  company  with  the  bishop 
of  Durham,  who  in  his  name  swore  fealty  to  King  William.  In  thus 
preferring  peace  to  war,  he  best  consulted  his  own  welfare,  and  the 
inclination  of  his  subjects ;  for  the  people  of  Scotland,  though  fierce 
in  war,  love  ease  and  quiet,  and  are  not  disposed  to  disturb  themselves 

•Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  An.  1080. 

"  It  seems  certain  Robert  reaped  no  special  glory  in  his  Scottish,  expedition."  No 
authority  for  the  legend  that  Malcolm  met  Robert  in  Lothian  and  gave  hostages. 
(Norman  Conq.,  IV,  p.  671.)  "Whether  from  want  of  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mander or  of  efficiency  in  the  troops,  the  expedition  was  shamefully  unsuccessful." 
(Palgrave,  England  and  Normandy,  III,  p.  548.) 

»  Early  Kings,  II,  Note  Q. 

3  Palgrave,  Eng.  Com.,  II,  p.  cccxxxi. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  37 

about  their  neighbors'   affairs,  loving  rather  religious  exercises  than 
those  of  arms.1 

Now  the  citation  from  the  Book  of  Abingdon  is  clearly  proved 
to  have  been  transferred  from  the  year  1080,  where  it  belongs.2 
The  true  nature  of  the  expedition  of  1080,  and  hence  of  the  sup- 
posed expedition  of  1068-9,  nas  already  been  explained,  and 
characterized  as  "shamefully  unsuccessful."  The  passage  from 
Orderic,  therefore,  remains  as  "obscure"  as  ever,  and  the  impres- 
sion is  confirmed  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  "a  confused  and 
erroneous  version  of  the  events  which  actually  took  place  in 
1072,  transferred  by  one  of  his  usual  blunders  to  1068."3  A 
careful  examination  of  the  work  of  Orderic,  however  great  its 
value  in  other  respects,  makes  it  impossible  to  accept  his  testi- 
mony in  regard  to  Scottish  history  as  a  safe  basis  for  argument. 
He  was  born  in  1075.  At  the  age  of  ten  he  was  sent  to  Nor- 
mandy, and  spent  the  remainder  of  his  days  in  the  monastery  of 
St.  Evroult.  He  probably  visited  England  once,  possibly  twice, 
for  a  few  weeks,  but  no  more.  It  would  not  be  strange,  there- 
fore, to  find  his  work  representing  the  gossip  and  hearsay  of  the 
times,  or  his  own  imaginings,  rather  than  the  facts  of  history. 
All  the  passages  relating  to  Scotland  exemplify  this.  That  on 
the  submission  of  1868-9  is  unique.  Not  another  chronicler was 
aware  of  any  such  event.  It  contradicts  the  facts  of  history  in 
its  characterization  of  the  Scots — a  contradiction  which  Pal- 
grave  endorses,  when  he  says  :  "  A  strong  desire  for  religious  con- 
templation and  domestic  tranquillity  existed  among  the  Gael  of 
Albania.  Malcolm's  determination  of  submitting  to  William 
was  received  by  the  clans  with  the  greatest  joy  —  as  a  boon,  and 
not  an  humiliation.  His  embassadors,  accompanied  by  the  Bishop 
of  Durham,  appeared  before  the  Conqueror,  and  the  oath  of 
fealty,  taken  by  proxy,  renewed  the  bond  of  dependence  between 

'Ord.  Vit.,  II,  p.  19. 

2  Robertson,  Early  Kings,  II,  Ap.  Q ;  Freeman,  Norm.  Conq.,  IV,  Note  X. 

3 "Edgar  and  his  partizans  passed  the  whole  of  the  following  winter  in  Scotland, 
which  the  Conqueror  would  surely  have  provided  against  had  he  already  received  the 
submission  of  Malcolm."  Orderic  "alone  passes  over  without  notice  the  really  impor- 
tant meeting  between  the  two  kings  in  1072."     (Early  Kings,  II,  Ap.  Q.) 


259665 


38  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

the  kings  of  the  Scots  and  the  Basileus  of  the  British  Islands."1 
Yet  it  was  under  Malcolm  III  that  five  of  the  most  cruel  Scottish 
raids  known  were  made  into  English  territory,  and  on  his  death 
these  Gael  who  were  so  desirous  for  "religious  contemplation" 
began  a  fight  to  expel  the  English  whom  Malcolm  had  brought 
into  Scotland — a  fight  which  ended  in  the  death  of  the  claim- 
ant to  the  throne  who  had  English  support.  Orderic  describes 
at  length  the  expedition  of  William  Rufus,  in  1092,  against  Mal- 
colm, recounts  the  conversations  which  took  place  back  and 
forth  between  the  two  kings  on  the  impassable  banks  of  the 
Forth,  and  the  negotiations  with  Count  Robert.  He  makes 
Malcolm  confess  that  King  Edward  had  given  him  the  county 
of  Lothian  with  the  hand  of  his  niece  Margaret  —  a  fact  quite 
unknown  to  other  chroniclers.  The  negotiations  for  peace  are 
finally  concluded.  The  two  armies  are  disbanded,  and  the  two 
kings  depart  for  England  together.  Malcolm,  wishing  after  a 
time  to  return  to  Scotland,  is  murdered  on  the  way  by  Robert 
de  Mowbray.  "The  King  of  England  and  his  great  nobles 
hearing  of  this,  were  deeply  distressed,  being  ashamed  that  so 
foul  and  cruel  a  deed  should  be  done  by  Normans." 2  Such 
sentiments  were  truly  characteristic  of  William  Rufus  !  Edgar 
then  succeeded  Malcolm,  but,  being  opposed  by  Donald,  was 
slain.  Alexander  then  slew  Donald  and  ascended  the  throne. 
This,  as  will  soon  appear,  directly  contradicts  well-known 
facts.  Orderic,  therefore,  as  an  original  authority  on  Scot- 
land, may  hereafter  be  left  undisturbed  in  his  monastic  seclu- 
sion. 

It  seems  probable  that  there  was  some  tie  of  friendship 
between  Malcolm  III  and  Robert,  the  eldest  son  of  the  Con- 
queror. Instances  of  playing  into  each  other's  hands  have 
already  been  noted.     It    is    Robert  and    Edgar    Atheling  who 

'Mr.  Freeman  says,  however  ( 1 068 ),"  Scotland  Bernicia,  and  the  northwestern 
shires  of  Mercia,  were  still  left  in  their  precarious  independence."  And  again,  "  The 
men  of  the  still  independent  England  beyond  the  Tees."  (Norman  Conq.,  IV,  pp.  207, 
254.) 

*Ord.  Vit.,  Eccl.  Hist.,  Ill,  p.  II. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  39 

negotiate  the  final  treaty  between  Malcolm  and  William  Rufus ; 
and  apparently  William's  failure  to  keep  his  engage- 
Agreement        ments   occasioned  the   departure,  about  Christmas 

time,    i  OQ  i,  of  both    Robert  and   Edgar   from   the 
Malcolm  and 
William  English  court.1     In  its  account  of  these  transactions 

the  Chronicle  gives  the  first  definite  intimation  of 
the  feudal  arrangements  between  Malcolm  and  William  the 
Conqueror. 

While  King  William  was  out  of  England,  King  Malcolm  of  Scotland 
came  hither  into  England,  and  harried  a  great  deal  of  it,  until  the  good 
men  who  had  charge  of  this  land  sent  a  force  against  him,  and  turned 
him  back.  When  King  William  of  Normandy  heard  of  this,  he  made 
ready  for  his  departure,  and  came  to  England,  and  his  brother  the  count 
Robert  with  him,  and  forthwith  ordered  a  force  to  be  called  out,  both  a 
ship-force  and  a  land-force;  but  the  ship-force,  ere  he  could  come  to 
Scotland,  almost  all  perished  miserably ;  .  .  .  .  and  the  king  and  his 
brother  went  with  the  land-force.  But  when  King  Malcolm  heard  that 
they  would  seek  him  with  a  force,  he  went  with  his  force  out  of  Scot- 
land into  the  district  of  Leeds  (provincia  Loidis,  Fl.  Wigorn.)  in  Eng- 
land and  there  awaited.  When  King  William  with  his  force  approached, 
then  intervened  Count  Robert  and  Eadgar  aetheling,  and  so  made  a 
reconciliation  between  the  Kings ;  so  that  King  William  came  to  our 
King,  and  became  his  man,  with  all  such  obedience  as  he  had  before 
paid  to  his  father,  and  that  with  oath  confirmed.  And  King  William 
promised  him  in  land  and  in  all  things  that  which  he  had  had  before 
under  his  father." 

Florence  of  Worcester  says  that  besides  the  destruction  of 
William's  fleet  many  of  his  horsemen  also  perished  with  cold 
and  hunger  before  he  could  reach  Scotland.  Malcolm  came  to 
meet  him  with  an  army  "in  provincia  Loidis."  Earl  Robert, 
perceiving  this,  concluded  a  peace  between  the  two  kings,  with  the 
assistance  of  Edgar  Atheling,  "ea  conditione,  ut  Willelmo,  sicut 
patri  suo  obedivit,  Malcolmus  obediret;  et  Malcolmo  xii.  villas, 
quas  in  Anglia  sub  patre  illius  habuerat,  Willelmus  redderet,  et 
xii.  marcas  auri  singulis  annis  daret."3     Simeon  adds  the  infor- 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1091  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  142. 

aA.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1091.  3F1.  Wig.,  II,  p.  29. 


4°  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

mation  that  William  came  to  Durham  and  restored  the  bishop  to 
his  seat.  He  continues,  "Sed  antequam  rex  intrasset  Scotiam"  — 
and  from  this  point  quotes  from  the  chronicle  of  Worcester  con- 
cerning the  destruction  of  the  English  forces.  Malmesbury  passes 
his  judgment  on  the  expedition  in  the  words  "nihil  magnificentia 
sua  dignum  exhibuit ;  militibus  desideratis,  jumentis  interceptis." 
Roger  of  Wendover  illustrates  the  spirit  in  which  the  later 
writers  approach  such  events  when  he  says  that  Malcolm,  "nimio 
terrore  percussus,"  did  homage  to  William  and  swore  fealty.1 

A  comparison  of  these  materials  makes  certain  points  clear : 

1.  Malcolm  sought  a  meeting  with  William. 

2.  The  destruction  of  a  large  part  of  William's  forces  left 
him  in  no  position  to  compel  Malcolm  to  an  agreement. 

3.  The  agreement  negotiated  between  the  two  kings  had  for 
its  basis  the  treaty  to  which  Malcolm  and  the  Conqueror  were 
parties  in  1072.  Malcolm  was  to  render  the  same  obedience  to 
William  that  he  had  rendered  to  his  father,  and  William  was  to 
restore  to  Malcolm  the  twelve  manors  he  had  "in  Anglia"  under 
the  Conqueror,  and  to  pay  him  twelve  marks  of  gold  each  year. 

Such  an  agreement  was  quite  in  accord  with  the  keen-sighted 
policy  of  the  great  William.  He  had  won  England.  But  how 
to  keep  it  was  not  an  easy  problem.  It  does  not  seem  that 
his  thoughts  extended  beyond  the  consolidation  of  England 
and  Normandy.  If  they  did,  there  were  richer  lands  to  conquer 
than  the  barren  north.  He  treated  the  Scots  very  much  as  he 
did  the  Danes,  buying  their  inactivity  or  peace,  that  he  might, 
by  thus  securing  his  borders,  develop  the  internal  strength  and 
unity  of  his  kingdom.  Any  other  policy  would  have  been  almost 
suicidal,  even  for  the  Conqueror.  Some  such  arrangement  with 
the  Scots  as  had  been  made  with  the  Danes  during  the  revolt  of 
the  north  might,  therefore,  be  reasonably  expected.  It  took 
the  form  of  an  annual  pension  or  subsidy  in  gold,  together  with 
certain  lands  in  England,  for  which  Malcolm  did  homage.2     It 

•Hist.  Reg.,  II, p.  218  ;  Gesta  Reg.  Ang.,  II,  p.  365 ;  Flor.  Hist.,  An.  1090. 
2  A  somewhat  similar  policy  was  followed  in  the  pacification  of  the  Highlands  in 
1691-2.     (Gardiner,  Student's  Hist.  Eng.,  p.  653.) 


NORMAN  INFL  UENCE  IN  SCO  TLAND  4 I 

is  hardly  conceivable  that  Malcolm  would  surrender  without  a 
blow  the  independence  of  his  kingdom,  or  that  William  Rufus 
would  consider  his  suzerainty  over  Scotland  dearly  bought,  at  such 
a  price.  Yet  William  was  certainly  unwilling  to  comply  with 
his  treaty  obligations,  while  Malcolm  was  equally  anxious  to 
have  them  fulfilled — an  attitude  on  the  part  of  both  kings  that 
indicates  that  Malcolm's  homage  was  for  this  grant  of  the  Con- 
queror in  England.  Mr.  Freeman,  seeking  with  his  wonted  per- 
sistency and  ingenuity  to  establish  his  theory  of  Lothian  as  an 
English  earldom,  says :  "At  this  stage  Lothian  was  the  land 
held  within  the  Kingdom  of  England ;  it  was  what  Northumber- 
land, Huntingdon,  or  any  other  confessedly  English  land  held 
by  the  Scottish  King,  was  in  later  times."  For  this  statement 
he  cites  no  authority.  Again  he  says:  "One  would  like  to 
know  whether  the  'xii.  villae  quas  in  Anglia  sub  patre  illius 
[Willelmi  Rufi  sc]  habuerat  [Malcolmus]'  were  in  Lothian  or 
where."  Mr.  Round,  whose  critical  research  has  exposed  many 
of  the  fallacious  theories  propounded  by  Mr.  Freeman  and 
others,  has  incidentally  given  at  least  a  partial  answer  to  this 
query  in  his  discussion  of  the  Northamptonshire  Geld-Roll. 
"Although  written  in  old  English,  it  is  well  subsequent  to  the 

conquest,"  but  "cannot  be  later  than  1075 Of  the  very 

few  names  mentioned,  one  may  surprise  and  the  other  puzzle  us. 
The  former  is  that  of  'the  Scot  King,'  holding  land  even  then 
in  a  shire  where  his  successors  were  to  hold  it  so  largely."  This 
reference,  taken  with  two  such  sources  as  the  Chronicle  and 
Florence  of  Worcester,  is  certainly  significant,  nor  does  it 
require  any  stretch  of  imagination  to  conclude  that  these 
Northamptonshire  lands  were  connected  with  the  Conqueror's 
grant  to  Malcolm  III.  Unfortunately  the  reference  is  not  defi- 
nite enough  to  do  more  than  suggest  the  fact  of  such  holdings 
by  the  Scot  king.  It  may  also  be  urged  that  this  document 
proves  too  much,  that  possibly  these  lands  were  held  prior  to 
the  grant  of  the  Conqueror  —  thereby  implying  homage  and  a 
closer  relation  than  has  been  admitted  hitherto.  But  conceding, 
at  most,  that  Malcolm  Ceanmore  was  related  to  Siward,  that  he 


42  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

lived  in  England  in  exile  during  the  reign  of  Macbeth,  perhaps 
here  in  Northamptonshire,  and  that  the  earl  of  Northumberland, 
with  the  consent,  if  not  at  the  command,  of  Edward  the  Con- 
fessor, aided  him  in  his  first  attempts  to  regain  his  kingdom,  the 
admission  does  not  touch  the  main  point  at  issue,  viz.,  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.  For  it  is  inconceivable 
that  the  weak  Confessor  King  should  have  enjoyed — apparently 
without  lifting  a  finger  —  or  that  his  powerful  successors  should 
have  lost,  what  Henry  II  wrung  by  special  charters  from  the 
dire  necessity  of  his  royal  captive,  William  the  Lion,  and  what 
the  great  Edward  appropriated,  only  after  the  failure  of  all 
direct  heirs  to  the  Scottish  crown  left  the  kingdom  to  be  the 
spoil  of  anarchy.  The  truer  view  and  the  one  most  in  accord 
with  the  best  sources,  is  that  the  Scottish  kings  did  not  hold 
definite  feudal  fiefs  in  England  till  this  grant  of  the  Conqueror.1 
Two  years  passed,  and  then 

....  the  King  of  Scotland  sent  and  demanded  the  fulfilment  of  the 
treaty  that  had  been  promised  him.  And  King  William  summoned 
him  to  Gloucester,  and  sent  him  hostages  to  Scotland,  and  Eadgar 
aetheling  afterwards,  and  the  men  back  again,  who  brought  him  with 
great  worship  to  the  king.  But  when  he  came  to  the  king,  he  could 
not  be  held  worthy  the  speech  of  our  king,  or  the  conditions  that  had 
been  previously  promised  him,  and  therefore  in  great  hostility  they 
parted,  and  King  Malcolm  returned  home  to  Scotland.  But  as  soon 
as  he  came  home,  he  gathered  his  army,  and  marched  into  England, 
harrying  with  more  animosity  than  ever  behoved  him.  And  then 
Robert,  the  earl  of  Northumberland,  ensnared  him  with  his  men 
unawares,  and  slew  him.  With  him  also  was  slain  his  son  Edward, 
who  should,  if  he  had  lived,  have  been  king  after  him.2 

Malcolm's   action   may  have    been    prompted   by  William's 

1  Norman  Conq.,  I,  Note  I ;  Wm.  Rufus,  I,  p.  303  ;  Round,  Feudal  Eng.,  pp. 
147-8.  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Round  for  the  favor  of  a  personal  letter,  giving 
the  results  of  a  special  examination  of  the  puzzling  passage  in  the  Northampt.  Geld- 
Roll,  and  of  others  which  might  have  a  bearing  on  it.  But  neither  he  nor  Mr.  W.  H. 
Stevenson  (probably  the  best  authority  on  eleventh  century  Anglo-Saxon)  has  been  able 
to  determine,  as  yet,  its  exact  meaning  and  force.  Mr.  Round  takes  it  to  imply  own- 
ership at  the  time.     Mr.  Stevenson  thinks  the  entry  may  be  corrupt. 

*  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1093. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  43 

invasion  of  Cumberland,  in  which  he  drove  out  Dolphin,  the  son 
of  Cospatric,  seizing  and  fortifying  Carlisle.  By  a  grant  to 
Cospatric,  after  his  flight  from  England,  he  and  his  descendants 
became  vassals  of  the  king  of  Scots,  and  Dolphin  probably  held 
in  Cumberland  under  Malcolm,  who  might  well  object  to  the 
high-handed  policy  of  William  Rufus.  Hence  the  demand  for 
a  fulfilment  of  the  treaty  of  1091.  William  had  fallen  so  seri- 
ously ill  at  Gloucester  "that  he  was  everywhere  reported  dead.' 
His  weakness  made  him  more  willing  to  listen  to  the  appeals  of 
his  primates  that  a  firm  peace  should  be  established  with  Scot- 
land.1 But  returning  health  revived  his  arrogance,  and  he 
refused  to  meet  Malcolm,  hoping  to  compel  him  to  "do  right" 
in  his  own  court,  and  in  the  presence  of  English  barons  only. 
But  Malcolm  indignantly  refused  to  do  right  "nisi  in  regnorum 
suorum  confiniis,  ubi  reges  Scottorum  erant  soliti  rectitudinem 
facere  regibus  Anglorum,  et  secundum  judicium  primatum 
utriusque  regni."  Returning  to  his  own  land,  he  prepared  for 
the  war  in  which  he  lost  his  life.2 

The  words  which  the  chronicler  puts  in  the  mouth  of  Mal- 
colm show  what  the  custom  was  in  the  later  age  in  which  he 
wrote,  after  the  feudal  relation  had  been  definitely  established 
for  several  generations.     Mr.  Robertson  says  : 

Certain  inferences  are  sometimes  drawn  from  the  expression  recti- 
tudinem facere,  'to  do  right,' — though  it  is  always  dangerous  to  lay 
too  much  stress  upon  the  strict  and  exact  legal  meaning  of  every  word 
employed  by  a  chronicler,  —  and  it  is  implied  that  'right'  could  only 
be 'done'  by 'a  vassal  to  his  superior,'  and  that  therefore  Malcolm 
was  William's  vassal — for  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland.  The  simple  answer 
to  this  is,  that  not  an  acre  of  land  could  be  held  under  the  feudal  system 
by  'noble  tenure'  except  by  homage,  or  vassalage,  the  extent  of  the 
vassalage  being  identical  with  the  extent  of  the  fief,  and  not  neces- 
sarily implying  the  entire  dependance  of  the  holder  upon  the  over- 
lord of  the  fief.     He  might  hold  other  fief s  of  innumerable  other  over- 

1  Norman  Conq.,  V,  p.  118;  Sim.  Dun.,  II,  pp.  196-9;  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1092-3; 
Skene,  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  430. 

aFl.  Wig.,  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  An.  1093;  on  Wm.  Malmes.,  Gest.  Reg.  Ang., 
II,  p.  366,  cf.  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  145,  note. 


44  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

lords.  Thus  in  a  treaty  of  peace  between  Philip  Augustus  and  Richard, 
the  latter  agrees  '  ut  ipse  faciet  Regi  Franciae  servitia  et  justicias  in  curia 
Regis  Franciae  de  singulis  feodis  quos  ab  eo  tenet'  (Foed.,  Vol.  I,  Pt. 
I,  p.  61),  ....  without  in  the  least  implying  the  subjection  of  the 
English  crown  to  the  French.  Rectitudo  simply  means  'a  right,'  and 
when  Prince  Alexander  performed  homage  to  John  'pro  omnibus 
rectitudinibus,  etc.,'  and  when  Richard,  by  his  Charter  of  Privileges, 
confirmed  to  William  '  omnes  libertates  et  rectitudines,  etc.,'  the 
'rights'  were  claimed  of  the  English  crown,  and  in  the  latter  case 
settled  'secundum  quod  recognoscetur  a  quatuor  proceribus  nostris 
.  .  .  .  et  a  quatuor  proceribus  illius,'  exactly  as  Malcolm  claimed  on 
this  occasion  ....  If  a  question  was  to  be  raised  about  the  right,  it 
was  to  be  decided  not  'secundum  judicium  tantum  baronum  ....  in 
curia  [ WillielmiJ '  but  'secundum  judicium  primatum  utriusque  regni' 
and  on  the  frontiers  (Doc.  Illust.  Hist.  Scot.,  XV,  sec.  19;  Foed.,  Vol. 
I,  Pt.  I,  pp.  50-62).1 

There  seems  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  Malcolm's  relation  to 
the  Conqueror  and  to  his  son  was  that  of  a  holder  of  certain 
lands  in  England  —  for  which,  and  for  an  annual  subsidy  of 
gold,  he  did  homage.  That  he  did  not  stand  in  a  feudal  rela- 
tion to  William  for  Lothian  might  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
he  granted,  without  remonstrance  from  the  Conqueror,  Dunbar, 
and  the  adjacent  lands  in  Lothian,  to  Cospatric,  after  he  had 
rebelled  against  the  Norman  king.  It  indicates  that  William's 
policy  was  to  secure  peace  on  the  border  rather  than  overlord- 
ship  in  Lothian.2 

The    unexpected    death    of    Malcolm's    son    and    successor, 

Edward,   threw  the  kingdom  into   great   confusion,   and   made 

English  interference  possible.    The  conditions  were 

Disorder  fol-      similar  in  many  respects  to  those  which  prevailed 

in    England    after    the    death    of   Henry  I.     How 
colm's  Death  6  I 

strong  was  the  opposition  to  the  English  became 

apparent  in  the   broils  and  tumults  which  followed   Malcolm's 

death.     The  Chronicle  reads  : 

The  Scots  then  chose  Donald,  Malcolm's  brother,  for  king,  and 

1  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  144-5  5  H>  P-  402>  notes. 

a  On  Malcolm's  character  cf.  Early  Kings,  in  loco,  and  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  432. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  45 

drove  out  all  the  English  who  were  before  with  King  Malcolm.  When 
Duncan,  King  Malcolm's  son,  who  was  in  King  William's  court,  —  his 
father  having  before  given  him  as  a  hostage  to  our  king's  father,  and 
he  had  so  remained  afterwards,  —  heard  all  that  had  thus  taken  place, 
he  came  to  the  king,  and  performed  such  fealty  as  the  king  would  have 
of  him,  and  so,  with  his  permission  went  to  Scotland,  with  the  support 
that  he  could  get  of  English  and  French,  and  deprived  his  kinsman 
Donald  of  the  kingdom,  and  was  received  for  king.1  But  some  of  the 
Scots  afterwards  gathered  together,  and  slew  almost  all  his  followers, 
and  he  himself  with  a  few  escaped.  Afterwards  they  were  reconciled, 
on  the  condition  that  he  never  again  should  harbor  in  the  land  either 
English  or  French. 

This  illustrates  anew  the  steady  opposition  of  the  native 
Scots  to  English  intervention  in  their  affairs.  The  following 
year  Duncan  was  killed  and  Donald  restored.  He  reigned  for 
three  years,  and  was  then  driven  out  by  Edgar  Atheling,  who  came 
with  an  English  army  to  establish  his  namesake,  the  son  of  the 
English  Margaret  and  Malcolm,  as  king  of  the  Scots.2  It  can- 
not be  doubted  that  Edgar,  like  Duncan,  sustained  some  feudal 
relation  to  the  king  of  England,  but  what  it  was  can  only  be 
learned  incidentally  from  the  later  history.  As  it  is  not  referred 
to  as  a  special  precedent,  or  basis  of  comparison,  as  in  the  case 
of  Malcolm  IV,  it  could  hardly  have  been  moie  than  an  indefi- 
nite and  temporary  relation,  fitting  in  naturally  with  the  troubled 
condition  of  the  times  and  the  kinship  which  existed  between 
the  royal  families. 

Before  passing  to  the  reign  of  Henry  I,  two  points  require 
notice. 

i.  The  meeting  place  of  Malcolm  and  William  Rufus.     If  it 

was  in  Lothian,  what  is  meant  by  this  designation?     In  general 

Lothian   is   regarded   as  part  or  all  of  the  region 

lying  between  the  Forth  and  the  Tweed.  But  what 
of  1091  J     ° 

was  its  relation  to  Bernicia,  Saxonia,  Northumbria  ? 
The  Roman  restrained  the  incursions  of  the  Picts  by  a  wall  from 
Tynemouth  to  Solway,  and  it  seems  that  the  Scots  at  times  laid 

1  The  Scots  were  evidently  taken  by  surprise.     (A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1093-4.) 
•A.-S.  Chron.,  1094. 


46  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

claim  to  the  district  north  of  this  line  as  theirs  by  right  of 
inheritance.  Northumbria  had  a  varying  boundary,  and  the 
region  from  Tyne  to  Forth  seems  to  have  been  included,  now 
under  the  name  Bernicia,  again  under  Saxonia,  and  sometimes 
under  the  varying  names  of  Lothian.  "The  Border"  was  an 
exceedingly  unstable  quantity.  But  in  the  feudal  period  Lothian 
seems  to  have  been  always  shut  off  from  the  Tweed  by  the  Scot- 
ish  March.  The  similarity,  in  the  Latin,  of  Lothian  and  Leeds 
has  increased  the  confusion.  Beda  twice  refers  to  Loidis,  and  it 
seems  pretty  clear  that  to  his  mind  "regio  Loidis"  meant  the 
district  of  Leeds.1 

The  A.-S.  Chronicle  reads,  "when  King  Malcolm  heard  that 
they  [William  and  Robert]  would  seek  him  with  a  force,  he  went 
with  his  force  ut  of  Scotlande  into  Lothene  on  Englaland  and  there 
awaited"  (1091).  This  Mr.  Thorpe  translates  "the  district  of 
Leeds,"  in  accordance  with  Florence  of  Worcester,  who  wrote 
"provincia  Loidis."  It  should  be  remembered  that  Florence 
followed  a  copy  of  the  Chronicle  which  has  not  been  preserved. 
Simeon  of  Durham  and  later  writers  agree  with  Florence  in  using 
"provincia  Loidis,"  though  in  1018  Simeon  designates  Lothian 
as  "  Lodoneium."  Walter  of  Hemingburgh  writes  "  provincia 
Lowdicensis  juxta  confinia  ad  resistendum  praeparatus.* 

Was  the  meeting  of  Malcolm  and  William,  then,  in  the 
district  of  Leeds,  or  north  of  the  Tweed  in  what  was  definitely 
known  as  Lothian,  or  at  some  place  between  the  Tyne  and  Tweed, 
in  the  region  anciently  claimed  by  the  Picts  and  Scots?  Mr.  Bur- 
ton maintains  the  first  view,  and  is  supported  by  Mr.  Thorpe's 
translation  of  the  Chronicle.3  Mr.  Skene  and  English  writers 
oppose  this  view  in  favor  of  the  second.4  Pinkerton  is  a  strong 
advocate  of  the  third  view,  making  the  place  of  meeting  in  the 
modern  county  of  Northumberland.5 

There  is  at  least  one  objection  to  a  meeting  in  the  district  of 

1  Beda,  Bk.  II,  Cap.  14  ;  Bk.  Ill,  Cap.  24  ;  Celtic  Scot,  I,  p.  254. 
aChronicon,  I,  p.  23.  *  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  429,  note. 

3  Hist.  Scot.,  I,  pp.  378,  444,  notes. 
5  An  Enquiry,  etc.,  II,  p.  209.     Cf.  Hailes'  Annals,  I,  p.  24. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  47 

Leeds.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Simeon's  narrative  that  William 
advanced  as  far  north  as  Durham,  and  restored  the  bishop  to  his 
see,  before  the  loss  of  his  forces  prevented  his  entrance  into 
Scotland.  Hence  a  meeting  with  Malcolm  in  the  district  of 
Leeds  could  only  be  brought  about  by  a  retreat  on  William's 
part  to  the  south.  There  is  no  positive  evidence  to  prove  such 
a  retreat,  but  there  is  nothing  against  it.  William  was  in  a 
region  which  had  always  been  a  menace  to  English  kings.  Here, 
"the  authority  of  the  king  and  the  unity  of  the  monarchy  were 
most  likely  to  be  threatened."  Malcolm  had  completed  the 
Conqueror's  work  of  desolation  in  the  land,  so  that  its  own  inhab- 
itants had  to  flee  to  escape  starvation.  William  had  reached 
Durham,  but  in  the  unseasonable  period  which  he  chose  the 
expedition  had  met  with  serious  disaster,  by  sea  and  land.  He 
might  well  hesitate  about  entering  a  hostile  country  with  a  starv- 
ing army  and  no  supplies,  to  meet  a  formidable  enemy  who  had 
his  kingdom  at  his  back.  Is  it  unreasonable  to  suppose,  there- 
fore, that  after  the  disaster  to  his  fleet  and  army  William  fell 
back  on  the  province  of  Leeds,  whither  Malcolm,  anxious  for  a 
renewal  of  the  grant  of  the  Conqueror,  came  and  awaited  either 
an  attack  or  negotiations  for  peace  ?  Mr.  Haddan,  in  discussing 
the  church  of  Cumbria,  marks  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
district  of  Leeds,  and  it  appears  that  if  William  had  retreated 
south  and  west  only  across  the  Tees,  Florence  and  Simeon  might 
naturally,  and  with  propriety,  have  spoken  of  him  as  being  "in 
provincia  Loidis."  It  is  noticeable,  also,  that  on  the  return 
journey  Florence  does  not  speak  of  William  as  going  from  Lothian 
through  Northumbria,  as  might  have  been  expected,  had  he  been 
north  of  the  Tweed,  but  from  Northumbria  through  Mercian  As 
evidence  that  this  meeting  occurred  north  of  Durham  (and 
therefore  in  Lothian !),  Mr.  Freeman  cites  a  "Carta  Willielmi 
Dunelmensis  Episcopi  de  ecclesiis  Alverton  Siggestune  at  Brun- 
ton,"  which  is  witnessed,  among  others,  by  the  king  and  his 
brothers  Robert  and  Henry,  as  also  by  Duncan  (son  of  Malcolm  III 

'Norman  Conq.,  IV,  p.  349;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc,  II,  Pt.  I,  pp.   io-Il; 
Fl.  Wig.,  II,  p.  29. 


48  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

by  Ingebiorg)  and  Edgar  Atheling.  As  Edgar  had  been  expelled 
from  his  lands  in  Normandy  and  had  fled  to  Scotland,  he  could 
not  have  signed  such  a  charter  till  after  the  reconciliation  between 
Malcolm  and  William,  which  included  the  renewal  of  friendly 
relations  between  William  and  himself.  And  as  both  Robert  and 
Edgar  Atheling  withdrew  from  the  English  court  just  before 
Christmas  of  1091,  the  charter  could  not  have  been  signed  after 
that  time.  Mr.  Freeman  infers,  therefore,  that  it  must  have  been 
witnessed  sometime  between  the  last  of  September  and  the  Christ- 
mas gemot — probably  at  Durham,  on  the  southward  march  from 
Scotland.  Hence  William  must  have  advanced  into  Lothian ! 
The  argument  is  ingenious,  but  it  rests  on  a  very  unsubstantial 
basis.  The  charter  itself  is  of  a  very  dubious  character.  It  is 
found  in  bad  company.  The  charters  which  precede  and  follow 
it  are  clearly  fraudulent.  And  even  this  one,  as  Mr.  Freeman 
admits,  has  some  startling  elements  which  make  its  authenticity 
doubtful.  It  has  been  considered  that  Henry  was  not  in  Eng- 
land at  this  time.  Malmesbury  is  the  sole  authority  for  the  con- 
trary view,  and  is  opposed  by  Orderic,  whom  both  Freeman  and 
Palgrave  so  frequently  rely  on  to  prop  up  their  theories  of  an 
English  Imperium  and  its  Scottish  dependency.  Furthermore, 
granting  the  genuineness  of  the  charter,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
ground  for  saying  that  it  was  witnessed  at  Durham,  on  the  south- 
ward march  from  Lothian.  Rather,  there  is  much  against  such 
a  view.  There  were  nearly  three  months  after  the  treaty  with 
Malcolm  was  completed,  and  before  the  departure  of  Edgar 
and  Robert  from  the  English  Court,  in  which  the  Durham  charter 
might  have  been  witnessed.  Among  the  names  appended  are 
those  of  the  archbishop  of  York,  the  bishops  of  Lincoln,  Bath, 
and  Salisbury,  the  abbots  of  St.  Augustine,  St.  Edmunds,  and 
St.  Mary,  Robert  the  Chancellor,  and  "  Ranulphi  thessarii,' 
besides  presbyters,  earls,  and  others.  It  is  almost  inconceivable 
that  Simeon,  the  Durham  chronicler,  should  have  specially,  and 
in  detail,  noted  the  visit  of  William  to  Durham,  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  bishop  to  his  see,  only  to  pass  over  in  absolute  silence 
such  a  gathering  of  prominent  clerics  and  laics,  and  so  important 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  49 

an  event  as  the  confirmation  by  the  Red  King  of  a  charter  to 
Durham.  The  prevalence  of  forged  charters  at  Durham,  and  the 
"singular  and  startling"  character  of  this  one,  forbid  its  use  as 
evidence  that  William  Rufus  advanced  beyond  the  Scottish  bor- 
der in  the  expedition  of  1091.1 

A  meeting  place  in  the  border  country,  south  of  the  Tweed, 
has  more  in  its  favor.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Malcolm  went 
out  of  Scotland  into  England  to  meet  William.  Now,  if  Lothian 
was  a  part  of  Scotland  at  this  time,  the  meeting  could  not  have 
occurred  there.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  English,  as  Freeman 
and  Palgrave  claim,  the  statement  of  the  chronicler  that  Malcolm 
went  out  of  Scotland  "into  Lothene  on  Englaland"  is  quite 
without  point.  He  would  never  think  of  saying  the  king  went 
from  Gloucester  to  Hereford  in  England,  unless  there  were  a 
Hereford  in  Wales,  which  he  wished  to  distinguish.  That  is  to 
say,  a  Lothian  in  England  implies  clearly  a  Lothian  in  Scotland, 
which  could  be  nothing  else  than  part  or  all  of  the  region 
between  the  Forth  and  Tweed.  And  if  plain  Lothian  did  not 
mean  the  region  north  of  the  Tweed,  surely  "Lothene  on  Eng- 
laland" would  not  make  such  a  meaning  any  more  clear.  Indulf 
had  made  the  first  step  toward  its  acquirement  by  seizing  Edin- 
burgh stronghold  (952).  After  the  battle  of  Carham  Eadulf 
Cudel  ceded  the  whole  district,  which  may  have  extended  south 
of  the  Tweed,  to  the  king  of  the  Scots.  Thereafter  it  remained 
in  his  hands.  The  Scots,  through  the  Picts,  had  a  claim  to  all 
the  northern  portion  of  Bernicia,  from  the  Tyne  to  the  Forth. 
The  unsettled  condition  of  the  border,  which  continued  till  a 
much  later  period,  favored  the  extension  of  Scottish  dominion 
over  this  district,  because  of  its  contiguity  to  the  seat  of  Scottish 
power.  The  author  of  the  article  on  Lothian  in  the  Bntannica 
says:  "There  is  no  trace  of  any  special  homage  for  Lothian 
except  in  two  dubious  charters  by  Edgar  to  William  Rufus,  so 
that  it  seems  certain  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  nth  Century 
it  was  an  integral  part  of  Scotland.     Freeman,  in  his  Historical 

1  Freeman,  Wm.  Rufus,  I,  pp.  296-307 ;   II,  note  P ;    Hist.   Dun.   Script.   Tres. 
(Raine),  Ap.  XXII. 


50  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Geography,  styles  it  an  English  earldom,  but  it  is  never  so  called 
in  any  authentic  record." 

The  conclusion  seems  inevitable.  The  meeting  must  have 
been  in  the  district  of  Leeds,  or  in  the  border,  marches  south 
of  the  Tweed.  The  latter  location  is  confirmed  by  another 
citation  from  the  Chronicle,  which,  in  1125,  mentions  the 
fact  that  J.,  bishop  of  Lothene,  went  to  Rome.  Mr.  Haddan 
shows  that  this  refers  to  John,  bishop  of  Glasgow,  who  was  con- 
secrated by  Paschal  II  about  11 17,  and  died  in  1147.  His  see 
varied  in  its  bounds,  and  in  the  jurisdiction  to  which  it  was 
subject.  Scottish  kings  ruled  over  Cumberland  and  Westmore- 
land, as  well  as  Scottish  Cumbria,  from  1070  to  1091,  but  Glas- 
gow bishops,  from  1053  to  11 14,  were  probably  consecrated  at 
York.  Conflicting  claims  arose  as  to  jurisdiction.  Durham 
claimed  Teviotdale,  while  York  claimed  Glasgow.  About  1100 
English  Cumbria  and  Teviotdale  were  taken  from  Durham,  the 
former  being  assigned  to  York,  the  latter  to  Glasgow.  "Glas- 
gow is  found  in  possession  of  Teviotdale,  and  indeed  of  all 
Roxburghshire  south  of  the  Tweed,  at  the  revival  of  that  See 
by  David,  A.  D.  1107-1124,  thus  bringing  down  Durham  to 
nearly  its  later  northern  boundary.  And  Glasgow,  of  course, 
also  claimed  Cumbria."1  The  see  of  Glasgow,  therefore,  or  the 
bishopric  of  Lothene,  had  as  its  southern  boundary  pretty  much 
the  present  line  of  demarcation  between  Scotland  and  England, 
but  did  not  embrace  the  region  known  as  the  Scottish  March  and 
Lothian  proper.  When  Lothian  was  ceded  to  Malcolm  II  in 
10 1 8,  its  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  transferred  from  Durham 
to  the  Scottish  bishop.  But  it  "did  not  at  any  time  include 
Teviotdale,  which  remained  subject  to  Durham  until  about  A.  D. 
1 100,  and  was  then  seized  by  Glasgow."  Hence  Teviotdale  at 
this  time,  though  politically  allied  with,  if  not  subject  to  Scot- 
land, was  ecclesiastically  under  the  see  of  Durham  or  Glasgow, 
and  might  have  been  regarded  by  the  monastic  chronicler, 
together  with  the  whole  of  Roxburghshire  south  of  the  Tweed, 
as   the  English  portion  of  the    bishopric  of  Lothene,  or  Glas- 

1  H.  and  S.,  Counc,  Vol.  II,  Pt.  I,  pp.  10-13,  l6»  23- 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  5 1 

gow.1  This  region  would  afford  an  advantageous  position  in  which 
Malcolm  could  await  William  Rufus,  and  is  the  very  situation 
chosen  nearly  a  century  later  by  William  the  Lion  in  his  deal- 
ings with  John.  A  study  of  the  sources  from  this  standpoint 
strengthens  the  conviction  that  the  meeting  was  not  in  the  region 
generally  known  as  Lothian. 

2.  The  influences  set  in  motion  by  Queen  Margaret,  making 
the    connection    between    the    Scottish    and    English    churches 

closer,  were  continued  by  her  sons.  Though  they 
Queen  Margaret  .».*.«  r  « 

and  the  Church  °Perated  mainly  in  the  realm  of  the  church,  they 

reached  out  into  the  political  and  territorial  rela- 
tions of  the  two  kingdoms.  Christianity  gained  access  to  south 
Britain  at  a  very  early  date,  through  Roman  channels,  and  to 
the  north  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  chiefly  through  Irish 
missionaries.  Augustine  was  commissioned  to  go  to  Britain 
A.  D.  597,  and  was  consecrated  after  his  arrival  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Aries,  with  the  pope's  consent.  He  was  to  consecrate, 
per  si?igula  loca,  twelve  bishops  subject  to  himself,  and  after  his 
death  to  a  metropolitan  at  London.  He  was  also  to  consecrate 
a  bishop  of  York,  who  in  turn,  having  received  his  pallium  from 
the  pope,  should  consecrate  twelve  others  subordinate  to  himself. 
After  the  death  of  Augustine  the  two  sees  were  to  be  equal  in 
principle,  precedence  being  given  to  the  occupant  of  the  see  of 
first  origin.  Difficulties  arose  which  prevented  the  realization 
of  this  scheme,  chief  among  which  was  the  independent  spirit 
of  the  Scots  in  regard  to  their  church  relations.  Their  ecclesi- 
astical capital  was  Dunkeld,  under  Kenneth  MacAlpin,  but  about 
907  A.  D.  the  seat  of  the  head  bishop  was  removed  to  St. 
Andrews.  His  position  was  that  of  a  diocesan  bishop,  of  whom 
there  were  few  in  Scotland  till  the  twelfth  century.2  Conflict 
between  York  and  Canterbury  as  to  jurisdiction  arose  very 
soon.  Councils  were  held  in  1072  at  Winchester  and  Windsor, 
in  which  the  Humber  was  recognized  as  the  boundary  between 

'  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc,  Vol.  II,  Pt.  I,  p.  142,  note.     For  map,  see  Celtic 
Scot.    Cf.  Pinkerton,  An  Enquiry,  etc.,  Vol.  II,  p.  209. 
*Makower,  Const.  Hist.,  Ch.  Eng.,  p.  105. 


52  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

the  two  sees.  Scotland  was  without  doubt  intended  to  form 
part  of  the  northern  diocese,  as  Wales  did  of  the  southern.  But 
''political  causes  kept  the  Northumbrian  primate  from  exercising 

any  effective  authority  north  of  the  Tweed  and  Solway 

Scotland  was  never  subdued  to  any  practical  purpose,  and  the 
result  was  that  the  archbishops  of  York  were  left  with  a  vast 
region  under  their  diocesan  care,  and  with  the  single  suffragan 
see  of  Durham  under  their  metropolitan  jurisdiction."  The 
popes  at  first  ratified  the  Scottish  subjection  to  York,  but  the 
Scot  kings,  mainly  on  national  grounds,  refused  their  assent  to 
any  such  transference  of  rights,  while  the  Scottish  clergy  made 
a  lasting  resistance  to  the  pretensions  of  York.  In  1188  A.  D., 
under  William  the  Lion,  their  claims  were  conceded,  and 
Clement  III  declared  the  Scottish  bishops  immediately  subject 
to  the  papal  see.  In  1472  A.  D.  "Scotland  received  the  normal 
church  constitution,  St.  Andrews  being  raised  to  an  arch- 
bishopric." Glasgow  became  a  metropolitan  see  in  1492  A.  D.1 
Queen  Margaret  was  the  first  to  enter  into  close  relations 
with  the  English  church.  She  offered  submission  to  Lanfranc  as 
her  spiritual  father,  to  which  he  replied,  "  De  tunc  igitur  sim 
pater  tuus,  et  tu  mea  filia  esto."  But  while  her  sons  were  ready 
to  follow  her  example,  they  were  unwilling  to  lose  their  inde- 
pendence thereby.  Alexander  I,  "the  Fierce,"  united  the  qual- 
ities of  his  father  and  mother.  On  his  accession  Turgot,  prior 
of  Durham  and  father  confessor  of  Queen  Margaret,  was  elected 
to  the  see  of  St.  Andrews  as  one  likely  to  carry  out  her  plans, 
and  was  consecrated  in  1 109  A.  D.  He  tried,  but  failed,  to  bend 
Alexander  to  his  will,  and  on  his  death  a  successor  was  sought 
from  Canterbury,  in  the  hope  of  escaping  the  pretensions  of 
York  through  the  rivalry  of  the  two  sees.8  Eadmer  was  sent, 
who  sought,  but  failed,  to  subordinate  St.  Andrews  to  Canter- 
bury.    As  Alexander  would  not  let  Turgot    go   to    Rome,   so 

•Norman  Conq.,  IV,  pp.  349,  357,  note;  Makower,  Const.  Hist.,  p.  108. 

aH.  and  S.,  Counc,  II,  Pt.  I,  pp.  155,170.  Canterbury  claimed  jurisdiction  over 
Britain  through  the  bull  of  Gregory  I  to  Augustine.  York  claimed  jurisdiction  over 
Scotland  "  on  account  of  the  signature  of  Wilfrith  at  the  council  of  Rome,  and  the  short 
episcopate  of  Trumwin  over  the  Scots."     (Early  Kings,  I,  p.  178.) 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  53 

Eadmer  should  not  go  to  Canterbury  as  bishop  of  St.  Andrews. 
He  finally  resigned,  but  after  eighteen  months  wished  to  be 
reinstated  (1122).     He  wrote  to  Alexander  : 

I  entreat  you  not  to  believe  that  I  wish  to  derogate  in  any  way  from 
the  liberty  or  dignity  of  the  Scottish  kingdom ;  since  if  you  still  per- 
sist in  retaining  your  opinion  about  your  former  demands  in  respect  of 
the  King  of  England,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  sacer- 
dotal Benediction  (an  opinion  with  which  I  would  not  then  concur, 
from  entertaining  ideas  which,  I  have  since  learnt,  were  erroneous), 
you  shall  find  that  I  will  no  longer  differ  from  your  views,  nor  will  I 
let  these  questions  separate  me  from  God's  service,  and  from  your  love 
that  in  all  things  I  may  follow  out  your  will. 

Alexander  refused  to  restore  him,  however,  and  appointed 
Robert,  Prior  of  Scone,  to  the  see  (1123).  In  the  diocese  of 
Glasgow  Earl  David  (Earl,  1107-24)  appointed  his  tutor  John 
as  bishop.  He  soon  fled  from  his  unruly  flock,  but  returned 
later  consecrated  by  Paschal  II.  Thorstein,  archbishop  of 
York,  having  triumphed  over  Canterbury  for  the  time,  summoned 
John,  and  suspended  him  when  he  refused  to  acknowledge  the 
dependence  of  Glasgow  on  York.  John's  appeal  to  Rome  was 
not  settled  till  11 74,  when  Alexander  III  made  Glasgow  "spe- 
cialem  filiam  nostram  nullo  mediante."  x 

These  conflicting  claims  gave  rise  to  a  great  many  complica- 
tions. Political  and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  certain  dis- 
tricts often  rested  in  different  persons.  These  relations  were 
constantly  changing,  and  there  was  every  opportunity  for 
asserting  claims,  which  were  without  foundation,  to  temporal  as 
well  as  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  The  chroniclers  were  monks, 
who  were  likely  to  be  more  familiar  with  ecclesiastical  than  with 
temporal  jurisdiction,  and  to  infer  that  the  former  carried  the 
latter  with  it.  Such  changes  doubtless  did  arise  in  course  of 
time.  It  is  necessary  to  remember  the  spirit  and  ultimate  out- 
come of  the  entire  struggle  in  order  to  keep  one's  bearings,  and 
to  form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  relations  between  the  two 
kingdoms. 

1  Eadmer,  Hist.  Nov.,  Bk.  6  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  174,  181-2,  note. 


54  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

During  Edgar's    reign  over  Scotland    another    strand    was 

added  to  the  bonds  that  were  knitting  the  kingdoms  together. 

Editha,   the   daughter  of   Malcolm  and    Margaret, 

became  the  wife   of  Henry   I   of  England.     With 
1097-1107  A.D.  J  . 

this  exception,  and  the  defeat  of  an  invasion  on  the 

north,  the   reign  of  Edgar  was   uneventful  and  colorless.     He 

died  in  1 107  A.  D.,  bequeathing  to  his   brother  Alexander  the 

main   part  of  the    kingdom,   but  leaving  Scottish  Cumbria   to 

David,  who   was  his  favorite  brother.     The   expression  in   the 

chronicle,  "Alexander  his  brother  succeeded  to  the 

-Alexander 

'  kingdom,  as  King  Henry  granted  him,"  is  a  reminder 
of  the  family,  rather  than  of  the  feudal,  relation 
which  existed  between  the  two  crowns,  and  seems  to  imply 
Alexander's  desire  for  the  moral  support  which  his  brother-in- 
law's  confirmation  would  give,  rather  than  Henry's  desire  to 
assert  a  feudal  claim  to  overlordship.  The  risings,  which  Alex- 
ander had  to  put  down  with  a  stern  hand,  certainly  give  color  to 
this  view.1  Florence  of  Worcester  and  Simeon  of  Durham  both 
note  Alexander's  accession,  but  are  absolutely  silent  regarding 
any  concession  of  rights  by  Henry  I,  or  of  homage  by  Alex- 
ander. The  later  relations  between  Henry  and  the  brothers  of 
his  queen  clearly  show  that  he  made  no  effort  to  limit  their 
independence,  or  to  obtain  homage  except  for  fiefs  which  were 
granted  them  in  England.  Alexander  married  Sybilla,  a  natural 
daughter  of  King  Henry,  who  seems,  however,  to  have  had 
little  to  commend  her.2  The  chief  interest  of  his  reign  lies  in 
his  contest  with,  and  triumph  over,  the  English  church,  in  so 
far  as  that  contest  affected  his  rights  as  an  independent  king.3 
That  he  apparently  accomplished  little  else  of  general  interest 
should  not  be  laid  at  his  door.  The  kingdom  had  been  disor- 
ganized since  the  death  of  Malcolm  III.  The  reigns  of  Duncan, 
Donald,  and  Edgar  had  been  little  better  than  an  interregnum, 
so  far  as  the  development  of  a  national  kingdom  was  concerned 

'A.-S.  Chron.,  Hen.  Hunt.,  An.  1107;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  170  ff.;  Hailes'  Annals, 
I.  p.  56. 

2  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  183,  note.  3  See  above. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  55 

The  seeds  planted  by  Alexander   could  not  bear  their  fruit  at 

once.     On  his  death   in    1124  A.  D.  without  heirs,  his  brother 

David    succeeded    him,    uniting    again   the    entire 

'  kingdom  under  one  rule.1     David  was  the  first  to 

sustain    the    double    office    of    Scottish    king   and 

English    baron.     He    had  visited    the   English  court,   and  was 

thoroughly    acquainted    with   all    its    ways."     While    still    earl, 

he  grants  a  charter,  interesting  as  the  first  of  many  documents 

of  a  similar  nature,  addressed  "to  Edward  the  reeve,  and  all  his 

successors,  and  all  his  men  of  his  land  and  soke  in  London  and 

Totenham."3 

David    had    married   Matilda,    daughter  of    Earl  Waltheof 

of  Northumberland  and  widow  of  Simon  de  St.  Liz.     Of  the 

vast  estates  to  which  she  was  heiress  Northumber- 

„   M  .     ,  land   had   been  retained  by  the   crown,  since   the 

Northumberland  .  f 

forfeiture  of  Robert  de   Mowbray.     Northampton 

had  been  conferred  on  St.  Liz,  as  the  honor  of  Huntingdon  was 

on  David.     It  would  seem,  from  the  Chronicle,  that  David  was 

also  earl  of  Northampton,  but  he  was  probably  simply  guardian 

of  the  younger  St.  Liz,  who  is  found  in  possession 

„     ,  on   the  death  of   David,   in    IIX'3.4     David   is   the 

Huntingdon  3  J 

brother  of   Matilda,  queen  of  England,  the  husband 

of  Waltheof's  daughter  Matilda,  the  uncle  of  Matilda,  wife  of 
Stephen  of  Blois,  and  of  Matilda,  daughter  of  Henry  I,  the 
Empress-Queen.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  to  find  the  rela- 
tions between  the  two  kingdoms  very  friendly,  with  no  mention 
of  feudal  rights  on  either  side.  The  Pipe  Roll  of  Henry  I  makes 
frequent  mention  of  the  corrody  for  the  entertainment  of  the 
king  of  Scotland  in  coming  to  the  king's  court  in  England  and 
returning  from  England  to  Scotland  —  in  Nottingham  and  Der- 
by   shires,    in    Yorkshire,  Northumberland,  and   Durham.5     To 

1  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  II,  p.  275.  'Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  454. 

3  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  No.  2;  W.  Malms.,  Gest.  Reg.,  Bk.  V,  §400. 
4A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1 124.     On  distinction  between  honor  and  earldom,  cf.  Early 
Kings,  II,  p.  411,  note;  also  I,  pp.  187-8,  note. 

s  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  3,  4,  6,  9,  II,  14,  23,  24. 


56  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Fulco,  of  Hertfordshire,  is  pardoned  ten  marks  of  silver  "  for 
love  of  the  K.  of  Scotland."  The  sheriffs  of  Cambridge,  Hunt- 
ingdon, Northampton,  Bedford,  and  Lincoln  (cerchetone  wapen- 
tac)  shires  render  their  account  "in  pardon  by  the  K.'s  writ  ;  to 
the  K.  of  Scotland  " — pounds  or  shillings.  So  also  with  the 
county  of  Rutland  and  the  "Four  Sheriffs"  of  London.  The 
sheriffs  of  London  and  Middlesex  render  account  of  "  the  city 
aid;"  of  "the  Dane-geld;"  and  for  "a  murder  in  the  hundred 
and  half  of  Edelmeton  (Edmonton  ?);"  all  to  the  king  of  Scot- 
land.1 During  a  long  and  glorious  reign,  David's  grace  and 
force  of  character,  together  with  his  consummate  tact,  were  no 
less  conspicuous  than  his  powerful  connections  and  extensive 
dominions. 

Henry  began  his  efforts  to  secure  the  succession  while  in 
Normandy  in  1 1 1 5  A.  D.,  by  requiring  of  the  chief  men  there 
homage  and  oaths  of  fealty  to  his  son  William.  The  following 
year  he  did  the  same  in  England,  calling  a  great  "Conventio 
optimatum  et  baronum  totius  Angliae  apud  Searesberiam."  But 
the  sinking  of  the  White  Ship,  on  her  return  from  Normandy  in 
1 120,  frustrated  all  his  efforts  and  left  him  without  a  son.  He, 
therefore,  sought  to  secure  as  his  successor  his  daughter  Matilda, 
whose  husband,  the  Emperor  Henry  V,  had  just  died.  Such 
succession  was  an  innovation,  and  David,  now  king 

of  Scotland,  seems   to   have  taken  an   active   and 
with  Henry  I 

influential  part  in  Henry's  plans,  and  in  forwarding 

the  interests  of  his  niece.2     He  was  in  England  during  the  year 

1 126,  and  met  in  the  following  year  with  all   the  chief  clergy 

and  laity  of  England  in  the  Christmas  gemot  at  Windsor,  where 

archbishops,  bishops,  abbots,  earls,  and  thanes  swore  allegiance 

to  Matilda.     She  then  passed  over  to  Normandy,  where  she  was 

married  to  Geoffrey  of  Anjou  (1127).     David   was  the  first  to 

swear  allegiance  to  Matilda,  but  it  was  as  an  English  baron  and 

not  as  king  of  Scotland.3     Alexander  had  not  been  present  at 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts., I,  Nos.  15-20,  22,  25,  28. 

1  A.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1115,  1126  ;  Fl.  Wig.,  Sim.  Dun.,  Hist.  Reg.,  An.  1116. 

3\V.  Malmes.,  Hist.  Nov.,  Bk.  I,  §§  452,  460. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  57 

the   earlier  "  Conventio,"  as  would   have  been  the  case  had  he 

been  the  liegeman  of  Henry.     Mr.  Robertson  well  says:  "The 

absence  of  the  elder  brother,  who  held  no  lands  in   England, 

from  the  earlier  council,  and  the  presence  of  the  younger,  who 

held  the  Honor  of  Huntingdon,  at  the  later,  distinctly  mark  that 

the   homage  must  have  been   performed  for  fiefs  in  England. 

When  there  were  no  fiefs  held,  no  homage  was  required."1 

Eight  years  later  ( 1 1 33)  Henry  died,  and  Stephen,  who  had 

contended  with  Robert  of  Gloucester  for  precedence  in  swearing 

allegiance  to  Matilda,  usurped  the  crown.     At  the 
and  Stephen  .         _      . ,  ,11,  •  , 

same  time  David  crossed  the  border  with  an  army, 

and,  seizing  strongholds  in  Cumberland  and  Northumberland  as 

far  as  Durham  (with  the  exception  of   Bamborough),  received 

hostages  and  oaths  of  fealty  on  behalf  of  his  niece  from  the 

barons  of  that  region.     Stephen  soon  advanced  to  the  north,  and 

David  fell  back  on  Newcastle.    The  kings  met  soon  after.    David 

refused  to  hold  anything  of  Stephen,  in  violation  of  his  oath  to 

Henry  I,  but  permitted  his  son,  Prince  Henry,  to  do  homage  to 

Stephen  at  York,  and  to  receive,  in  addition  to  the  honor  of 

Huntingdon,  Doncaster  and  Carlisle,  with  all  which  pertained  to 

them.     The  strongholds  which  had   been  taken  by  David2  were 

given  back,  with  the  exception  of  Carlisle,  and   it  was  agreed, 

"as  some  say  who  were  present  at  this  convention,"  that  if  Stephen 

granted  Northumberland  to  anyone,  the  claims  of  Prince  Henry 

to  it  should  take  precedence  over  all  others,  and  receive  just 

consideration   in   the  curia  of  the   king.      From   this  time   the 

kings  of  Scotland  place  this  claim  in  the  foreground,  as  part  of 

their  settled  policy.     They  are  careful  to  perform  homage  and 

service  in  due  form  for  their  English  fiefs,  lest  by  forfeiture  they 

should  lose  their  right  to  this  valuable  claim.     Prince  Henry 

accompanied  Stephen  to   the  south,  but  the  preference   shown 

him    there    by    the    king    roused    the   jealousy  of    Ranulph   of 

Chester  and  others,  whose  rude  conduct  caused  the  indignant 

1  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  403. 

aA.-S.  Chron.,  An.  1 135-6;  J.  and  R.  Hex.,  An.  1 135-6.      Among  the  castles 
taken  by  David  were  Carlisle,  Werk,  Alnwick,  Norham,  and  Newcastle. 


58  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

David  to  recall  his  son.  Nor  would  he  allow  him  to  return  to 
the  English  court,  though  he  was  often  summoned. 

There  are  several  reasons  which  explain  David's  apparent 
acquiescence  in  Stephen's  usurpation.  The  English  barons, 
almost  without  exception,  failed  to  rally  around  Matilda,  and 
David  was  not  so  unwise  as  to  attempt  to  support  her  cause 
alone.  Stephen's  wife  was  also  David's  niece,  and  he  might  well 
be  perplexed  in  trying  to  reconcile  duty  with  inclination.  For 
the  difference  in  character  between  the  two  Matildas  seems  to 
have  been  wholly  in  favor  of  Stephen.  Malmesbury  assigns 
David's  action  to  his  conciliatory  character,  his  advancing  years, 
and  a  desire  for  ease  and  quiet.1  But  this  is  not  consistent  with 
his  later  conduct.  It  seems  probable,  finally,  that  he  was  not 
blind  or  deaf  to  self-interest,  though  he  sets  a  shining  and 
exceptional  example  of  fidelity  to  his  feudal  oath — a  fidelity 
which  was  soon  to  be  put  in  strong  contrast  by  the  faithlessness 
of  Matilda's  son,  Henry  II,  to  David's  grandson,  Malcolm  IV. 

A  detailed  account  of  the  northern  campaigns  and  of  the 
battle  of  the  Standard,  though  very  interesting,  is  not  essential 
to  the  present  discussion.2  The  results,  however,  are  of  great 
importance.  As  the  outcome  of  the  first  movement  Prince 
Henry  does  homage  for  Doncaster  and  Carlisle,  and  his  claims 
to  Northumberland  are  promised  consideration.  In  1 1 37  David 
again  entered  Northumberland,  while  Stephen  was  in  Normandy. 
At  the  request  of  Thurstin,  archbishop  of  York,  a  truce  was 
agreed  to  till  Stephen  should  return  to  England.  On  his  return 
messengers  were  sent  from  the  king  of  Scots,  demanding  that 
Northumberland  should  be  given  to  Prince  Henry.  This  being 
refused,  the  truce  was  broken  off,  the  castle  of  Werk  was 
besieged,  and  finally  forced  to  surrender ;  Northumberland  was 
devastated  and  the  castle  of  Norham  taken.  David  then 
advanced  into  Yorkshire.  The  barons  of  this  region  had  as  yet 
remained    neutral,   waiting  to    see   which  party  would   be   vic- 

1  Hist.  Nov.,  Bk.  I,  §  462. 

2  See  J.  and  R.  Hex.,  Hen.  Hunt.,  Athel.  Abbot  of  Rievaulx ;  cf.  also  Early 
Kings,  Vol.  I. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  59 

torious.  But  now  that  their  own  safety  and  wealth  were  threat- 
ened, they  took  up  arms.  Robert  de  Bruce  and  Bernard  de 
Balliol  met  David  and  urged  him  for  old  friendship's  sake,  and 
for  the  common  good,  to  cease  his  warfare,  offering  to  Prince 
Henry  at  the  same  time  the  earldom  of  Northumberland.  But 
David,  perhaps  knowing  they  could  not  carry  out  their  agree- 
ment, refused  to  yield  to  their  entreaties,  and  they  returned  to 
their  allies  —  Robert  having  first  renounced  his  allegiance  to 
David  and  the  fief  he  held  of  him  in  Galloway,  and  Bernard  the 
fealty  he  had  recently  sworn  to  him.  The  battle  of  the  Stand- 
ard, at  North  Allerton,  in  the  North  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  soon 
followed.  David's  defeat  was  largely  due  to  the  unruly  char- 
acter of  a  part  of  his  host.  "The  custom  of  'Scottish  service,' 
which  bound  every  man  to  attend  'the  hosting'  across  the 
frontier,  swelled  the  ranks  of  the  army  with  a  body  of  men,  fierce 
and  warlike  indeed,  and  endued  with  that  self-willed  and  reck- 
less courage  which  has  on  more  than  one  occasion  been  their 
bane,  but  often  indifferently  armed,  and  as  undisciplined  as  they 
were  unruly."1  His  plans,  which  were  skillfully  made  from  his 
large  experience  in  English  affairs  and  in  the  methods  of  feudal 
warfare,  were  rendered  useless  by  the  mutinous  demand  of  the 
wild  men  of  Galloway  and  others,  that  they,  though  unprotected 
against  the  mail-clad  Norman  chivalry  and  the  terrible  English 
arrows,  should  lead  the  van  in  the  charge  on  their  hereditary 
foes.  Their  repulse  and  the  eventual  defeat  of  the  disorganized 
Scottish  forces  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.2  David,  how- 
ever, soon  gathered  his  scatterea  troops  and  again  marched 
southward.  But  the  advent  of  Alberic,  the  papal  legate  to  Eng- 
land, offered  another  opportunity  for  mediation,  in  which  David's 
niece,  the  wife  of  Stephen,  joined.  In  the  spring  of  1 139,  at 
Durham,  Northumberland  was  granted  to  Prince  Henry  in  addi- 
tion to  his  other  fiefs,  in  the  presence  of  the  earls  and  barons  of 
England,   many  of  whom,  in  accordance  with  the  treaty,  did 

1  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  208.     By  old  custom  every  freeman  must  attend  the  hosting 
once  a  year. 

aJ.  and  R.  Hex.,  An.  1 137-8;   Fl.  Wig.,  II,  p.  III. 


60  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

homage   to   him   for  their   lands,  saving    only    their    fealty   to 

Stephen.     Stephen  was  to  retain  Bamborough   and    Newcastle, 

.for  which  an  equivalent  was  to   be  given  Henry   in  the  south. 

The  treaty,  which  had  been  made  between  Matilda  and   Prince 

Henry,  was  confirmed  by  Stephen  at  Nottingham  in  1 1 39,  and 

their  relations  were  now  not  only  friendly,  but  intimate."1  King 

David,  however,  remained  faithful  to  the  empress- 

_  queen,  and  rendered  her  material  assistance  after 

Empress  *  ■ 

Matilda  Stephen  s  surrender  at  Lincoln  and  her  subsequent 

rise  to  power.  But  her  proud  and  harsh  manner 
alienated  her  supporters,  and  David  was  forced  to  flee  with  her 
in  the  rout  at  Winchester,  retiring  once  more  to  his  own  king- 
dom. 

In     1 149    a    new    combination    was    formed.       The    son    of 
Matilda  and  Geoffrey,  soon  to  be  Henry  II,  came  to  Carlisle  to 

be  knighted  there  by  David  in  the  presence  of 
and  Her  Son       _  .  TT  ,    _,        .    ,  ,      r    _,  „,, 

Prince  Henry  and  Ranulph,  earl  of  Chester,      lhe 

dispute  between    the    prince    and    Ranulph    over  Carlisle    and 

Cumberland  was  now  settled.2     Ranulph  did  homage  to  King 

David  and  received  in  lieu  of  his  claims  on  Carlisle  the  honor  of 

Lancaster,  agreeing  also  that  his  son  should  take  a  wife  from  the 

daughters  of  Prince  Henry.     Stephen,  suspecting  the  true  nature 

of  this  meeting,  came  to  York.     It  had  been  agreed  that  David, 

Henry  of  Normandy,  and   Ranulph  should  meet  at  Lancaster, 

uniting  their  forces  in  an  attack  on  Stephen.     David,  faithful  as 

ever  to  his  oath,  advanced  on  Lancaster  with  the  young  Henry 

But  the  faithless   Ranulph   failed  to  appear,  the  plan  came  to 

nothing,  and  Henry  returned  to  Normandy.3     Hoveden  says : 

Henry,  son  of  the  Empress  Matilda,  now  a  youth  of  sixteen  years 
of  age,  having  been  brought  up  at  the  court  of  David,  king  of  Scots 
his  mother's  uncle,  was  knighted  by  the  same  King  David,  at  the 
city  of  Carlisle,  having  first  given  his  oath  that  if  he  should  come 
to  be  king  of  England,  he  would  restore  to  him  Newcastle  and  the 

'J.  and  R.  Hexham,  An.  1 138-9. 

9 Ibid,  An.  1 140  ;  Freeman,  Wm.  Rufus,  II,  p.  549. 

3  J.  Hexham,  Hen.  Hunt.,  An.  11 49. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  6 1 

whole  of  Northumbria,  and  would  allow  him  and  his  heirs  to  hold  for- 
ever in  peace,  without  challenge  of  their  rights,  the  whole  of  the  land 
which  lies  between  the  rivers  Tweed  and  Tyne.1 

William  of  Newburgh  says  the  same  in  substance.  Both 
these  men  were  English  monks.  As  authorities  they  take  first 
rank.  There  seems  no  reason,  therefore,  to  doubt  these  state- 
ments. They  both  lived  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  Hoveden 
was  a  clerk  in  his  court,  and  was  sent  north  on  a  mission  to  Gal- 
loway. They  had  every  facility  for  knowing  the  facts,  and  no 
reason  for  distorting  them.  The  silence  of  other  English 
chroniclers  on  this  point  is  easily  explicable.  Henry,  therefore, 
acknowledged  David's  claims  in  the  north  of  England,  and  sol- 
emnly promised  to  protect  them,  should  he  come  to  the  throne. 
David  was  now  at  the  height  of  his  power.  He  and  his  son 
held  a  kingdom  more  closely  bound  together  than  ever  before. 
It  extended  to  the  Tyne  and  practically  included 
David's  Power.  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  the  honor  of  Hunting- 
don, Northumberland,  and  Doncaster.  He  was 
Son  '  ' 

overlord  in  the  honor  of  Lancaster.  He  made  a 
grant  of  Furness  in  Westmoreland,  and  decided  claims  "in  hon- 
orem  de  Sciptun  et  Crafna"  far  south  of  the  Tees  in  York,  with- 
out consulting  the  wish  or  prerogative  of  the  English  king.2 
But  the  death  of  his  only  son,  Prince  Henry,  in  1152,  frustrated 
his  plans.  Of  an  attractive  face  and  figure,  manly,  forceful,  and 
winsome  in  character,  beloved  by  English  as  well  as  Scots, 
Henry  would  undoubtedly  have  carried  on  his  father's  work,  and 
have  maintained,  if  he  did  not  increase,  the  relative  power  of  the 
northern  kingdom.  The  unity  and  prosperity  of  Scotland  at  this 
period,  as  opposed  to  the  impoverished  and  desolated  condition 
of  England,  make  the  latter  not  impossible.  Of  Henry  St. 
Bernard  said:  "A  brave  and  noble  soldier,  he  walked  like  his 
father  in  the  paths  of  justice  and  of  truth."3     The  abbot  of  Rie- 

1  Newb.  Hist.  Ang.,  Hoveden,  An.  1 148-9.     Cf.  Introds.  to  above,  statements  of 
Hardy  and  Stubbs. 

aJ.  of  Hexham,  An.  1 151  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  222. 
'Quoted  in  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  225. 


62  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

vaulx,  in  more  extravagant,  but  perhaps  no  less  sincere  language, 
exalts  the  merits  of  one  who  was  his  personal  friend.  David 
lost  no  time  in  securing  the  succession  to  Henry's  sons,  Malcolm 
and  William.  The  former  was  sent  through  all  the  parts  of 
Scotland  to  be  acknowledged  as  the  king's  successor,  while  the 
king  himself  went  with  William  to  Northumberland  to  secure  his 
acceptance  as  overlord  by  the  English  barons.1  Meanwhile 
Matilda's  son  Henry  arrived  in  England  from  Normandy,  and 
Stephen  took  the  opportunity  afforded  by  the  death  of  David's 
son  to  grant  the  honor  of  Huntingdon  to  the  earl  of  North- 
ampton, hoping  thus  to  strengthen  his  own  cause.2 
David's  Death  »  ° 

'  Not  long  after,  David  also  died.     In  opposition  to 

the  sterner  measures  of  his  brother  Alexander,  he 
made  conciliation  the  keynote  of  his  whole  policy.  Under  his 
able  rule,  and  through  his  careful  oversight  of  agriculture  and  of 
industry  in  general,  Scotland  became  the  "granary  of  England" 
during  this  troubled  period.  He  encouraged  the  advent  of 
knights  and  nobles  of  foreign  birth,  using  them  as  a  balance 
between  his  Gaelic  and  Norman  followers.  Mr.  Freeman  says 
of  David :  "  He  was  the  creator  of  the  more  recent  kingdom,  the 
strengthener  of  its  ecclesiastical  and  feudal  elements."  And  of 
Northumberland  and  Cumberland  :  "The  grant  of  these  earldoms 
to  a  Scottish  king,  or  to  a  Scottish  king's  son,  practically 
amounted  to  cutting  them  off  from  the  kingdom  of  England." 
This  strikes  the  keynote  of  the  entire  history.  Scotland  was 
always,  at  least  in  spirit,  an  aggressive,  independent  kingdom, 
pushing  her  borders  southward  into  English  territory,  where  she 
was  not  without  good  claims  to  inheritance.  Had  David  been 
followed  by  a  strong  ruler,  the  Tyne  and  not  the  Tweed  might 
have  continued  for  years  to  mark  the  southern  limit  to  the  over- 
lordship  of  the  Scottish  king.3 

Neither  Freeman  nor  Lingard  cites  authority  for  saying  that 

1  J.  of  Hexham,  W.  Newb.,  An.  1152. 

2  Lytt.  Hist.,  II,  p.  243. 

3  William  of  Newburgh  (Bk.  I,  Cap.  XXII)  says:  "Aquilonalis  vero  regio,  quae  in 
potestatem  David  regis  Scottorum  usque  ad  flumen  Tesiam  cesserat,  per  ejusdem  regis 
industriam  in  pace  agebat."     CJ.  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  227. 


NORMAN  INFLUENCE  IN  SCOTLAND  63 

David  claimed  Cumberland  as  having  anciently  belonged  to  the 
heir  apparent  of  the  Scottish  throne.  The  only  claim  made  was 
for  Northumberland,  and  this,  says  Mr.  Robertson,  "  was  waived 
at  the  time  for  the  fiefs  of  Carlisle  and  Doncaster."1  There  is 
absolutely  no  mention  of  Cumberland,  nor  any  allusion  to  any 
right  of  inheritance  there.  The  grant  of  Doncaster  might  as 
justly  be  taken  to  imply  an  ancient  right  in  the  south  of  York, 
as  the  grant  of  Carlisle  an  ancient  right  in  Cumberland.  What 
is  known  as  Cumberland  had  been  ceded  to  Malcolm  II  by 
Edmund  in  945  A.  D.  But  it  had  been  withdrawn  on  the  death 
of  Malcolm,  and  from  1070  to  1092  Malcolm  III  had  held  it  by 
right  of  conquest.  Then  William  Rufus  invaded  it  and  fortified 
Carlisle.  Henry  I  granted  this  district  of  Carlisle,  as  an  earl- 
dom, to  Ranulph  le  Meschines,  who  gave  it  up  in  11 18  for  the 
earldom  of  Chester.  It  then  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  crown 
till  granted  to  David.  Before  the  death  of  Henry  I,  however, 
it  was  divided  into  the  shires  of  Carlisle  and  Westmoreland. 
The  modern  county  of  Cumberland  does  not  appear  as  such  in 
the  Pipe  Rolls  till  11 JJ.  Mr.  Freeman  says:  "Cumbrian  geog- 
raphy is  one  of  the  most  mysterious  of  subjects,  and  it  may  be 
discreet  to  abstain  from  searching  over  narrowly  into  the  exact 
relations  between  the  territory  which  was  now  granted  to  Henry 
and  the  territory  which  had  been  in  the  old  time  granted  to 
Malcolm."  The  expression  "discreet"  is  a  decided  concession 
to  the  Scottish  claims.2 

'  Freeman,  Norman  Conq.,  V,  pp.  256,  260-1 ;  Lingard,  Hist.  Eng.,  II,  p.  69  ; 
Early  Kings,  I,  p.  193,  note.  The  whole  subject  is  placed  in  a  false  light  by  Fordun's 
effort  to  put  Cumberland  on  the  same  basis  as  Huntingdon  in  relation  to  the  two 
crowns  —  an  effort  for  which  there  is  no  historical  basis. 

2  Norman  Conq.,  V,  p.  261  ;  Wm.  Rufus,  II,  p.  545  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  194,  note. 
The  simple  reason,  says  Mr.  Freeman,  why  Cumberland  and  Westmoreland  do 
not  appear  in  the  Domesday  survey,  is  that  they  formed  no  part  of  England  under  the 
Conqueror.  They  were  all  border  lands,  and  treated  more  as  hostile  territory  than  as 
integral  parts  of  England.  So  much  of  them  as  did  belong  to  the  kingdom  was 
included  under  Yorkshire.  Even  under  Wm.  Rufus  there  was  no  earldom  of  Cumber- 
land.    It  was  the  district  of  Carlisle. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    REIGN    OF    THE    FIRST    PLANTAGENET. 

The  death  of  Stephen  left  Malcolm  "the  Maiden,"  a  boy  of 
thirteen,  face  to  face  with  his  powerful  neighbor,  Henry  II. 
He  n  _  Malcolm's  father  had  without  doubt  possessed 
1189  A.  D.  Northumberland,  and  the  chronicles  are  quite 
Malcolm  IV,  agreed  that  on  Malcolm's  accession  to  the  throne 
1153-1165A.D.  his  brother  William  "the  Lion"  became  earl  of 
Northumberland.1  Henry's  policy  was  to  reduce  or  destroy  the 
power  of  the  nobles,  which  had  grown  so  rapidly  during 
Stephen's  reign.  He  was  ambitious,  and  utterly  unscrupulous, 
if  necessary,  in  order  to  attain  his  ends.  Forgetful  of  the  oath 
he  had  sworn,  he  waited  only  long  enough  to  secure  himself  on 
the  throne  and  to  bring  some  order  out  of  the  chaos  that  had 
reigned,  before  he  demanded  from  the  young  Malcolm  all  the 

northern  counties  which  his  father  and  grandfather 
The  Northern  had  hdd  Qf  the  contractino-  parties  Henry  alone 
Counties  &  r  J 

survived.  Matthew  of  Westminster  says  that  Mal- 
colm, having  invaded  England  in  a  hostile  manner  and  rashly 
occupied  what  did  not  belong  to  him,  was  repelled  by  Henry 
with  force,  to  whom  the  king  of  Scotland  then  surrendered 
Carlisle,  the  castle  of  Bamburgh,  Newcastle  on  the  river  Tyne, 
and  the  whole  of  the  county  of  Laudon  ;  while  Henry  restored 
to  Malcolm  the  earldom  of  Huntingdon.2  There  is  no  evidence 
of  such  an  invasion,  however.  It  would  have  been  most  ill- 
advised —  for  Malcolm  had  nothing  to  gain  and  everything  to 
lose.  That  he  reluctantly  yielded  to  Henry's  demand,  and  sur- 
rendered the  counties,  in  the  enjoyment  of  which  the  king  had 

1  Hoveden,  An.  1153  ;  J.  of  Hexham,  Nic.  Trivet.,  W.  of  Newb.,  An.  1 152  ;  Rad. 
Die,  An.  1 173. 

2  An.  1157. 

64 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  65 

solemnly  sworn  to  assure  him,  is  undoubted.     At  the  same  time 
he  advanced  his  claims  on,  and  received  investiture 
.  for,   the   honor  of  Huntingdon,  for  which  he  did 

homage.1  The  question  now  arises  whether  Lothian 
was  included  in  his  surrender.  The  earlier  and  better  author- 
ities, with  one  exception,  are  silent  regarding  it.  Triveti 
includes  "civitatem  Carlioli,  villamque  Novi-castri  super 
Tynam,  castrumque  Bamburgiae  cum  territorio  adjacente,"  and 
says  Henry  restored  to  Malcolm  the  earldom  of  Huntingdon. 
William  of  Newburgh  mentions  only  "  Northumbriam,  Cum- 
brian!, Westmeriam."  Hoveden  says  Malcolm  met  the  English 
king  at  Chester  "et  homo  suus  devenit,  eo  modo  quo  avus 
suus  fuerat  homo  veteris  regis  Henrici,  salvis  omnibus  digni- 
tatibus  suis"  (An.  1157).2  Roger  of  Wendover,  however,  adds 
"totum  comitatum  Lodonensem,"  which  Matthew  of  West- 
minster calls  the  county  of  Laudon.  They  are  supported  in  this 
statement  by  Ralph  of  Diceto.  He  was  born  not  later  than 
1 1 30,  probably  in  France,  where  he  also  studied.  But  much  of 
his  life  was  spent  in  England,  and  the  amalgamating  forces  at 
work  there  made  him  an  Englishman.  He  became  high  dean 
of  St.  Pauls  in  11 80.  His  work  as  a  chronicler  began  late  in 
life.  "In  the  roll  of  English  historians  of  the  twelfth  century 
no  name  stands  higher"  than  his. 

It  was  this  high  authority  which  Wendover  copied  in  proof 
of  the  fact  that  Lothian  was  surrendered  to  Henry.  But  Diceto, 
it  seems,  was  not  an  original  authority.  He  drew  his  materials 
from  a  still  earlier  writer.  "The  obligations  of  our  author  to 
Robert   de    Monte,"   says    Mr.    Stubbs,    "are    unquestionable." 

1  Walt.  Heming.,  W.  Newb.,  An.  1 156-7.  Homage  always  preceded  the  conferring 
of  fiefs.  Where  its  nature  or  extent  was  in  dispute,  it  was  often  tendered  in  general 
terms  with  a  reservation  by  one  or  both  of  the  parties  —  cf.  the  case  of  Edward  III 
and  Philip  of  France,  as  also  that  of  Edward  I  and  Alexander  III.  A  similar  policy 
was  followed  in  the  vague  statement  of  boundaries  in  some  of  the  early  treaties  of  the 
United  States.  Napoleon  once  remarked  of  the  boundaries  in  the  Louisiana  cession 
that  if  the  stipulation  "  was  not  somewhat  vague  already,  it  would  perhaps  be  politic 
to  make  it  so."  (Winsor,  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist.  America,  VII,  p.  479  ;  Early  Kings, 
II,  p.  405  ff.;  Kitchen,  Hist.  France,  I,  p.  405  ;  II,  pp.  15,  36.) 

*  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  353,  note  ;  II,  p.  407,  note. 


66  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

The  abbey  of  Mont-Saint-Michel  was  "one  of  the  four  great 
centers  to  which  pilgrims  flocked  from  distant  parts  of  Europe." 
Its  abbot,  Robert,  died  in  1186.  Though  a  foreigner,  his  work 
is  considered  "essential  for  the  due  comprehension  of  the  reign 
of  Henry  the  Second."  He  visited  England  a  number  of  times 
in  the  interests  of  abbey  lands  there.  At  Mont-Saint-Michel  he 
met  the  leading  men  of  the  time,  and  acquired  a  wide  range  of 
information.  His  chronicle  forms  the  basis  for  Ralph  of  Diceto 
to  1 171,  possibly  as  late  as  the  year  1183.1  Thus  from  the 
scriptorium,  or  writing  room,  of  Saint-Michel  came  the  sources 
of  Diceto,  who,  in  turn  with  Robert  de  Monte,  supplied  the 
materials  for  the  scriptorium  of  St.  Albans.  A  clue  is  thus 
afforded  as  to  the  origin  of  the  story  about  the  cession  of 
Lothian  —  a  cession  of  which  the  best  authorities  are  ignorant, 
and  which  is  incompatible  with  the  later  history.  In  1 1 5 3,  the 
date  of  King  David's  death,  Robert  says  Malcolm  succeeded  to 
the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  while  his  brother  received  "  comitatum 
Lodonensem."  The  English  chronicles  are  equally  definite  in 
saying  that  William  was  established  as  earl  of  Northumberland. 
Again,  in  11 57,  Robert  says  Malcolm  surrendered  "comitatum 
Lodonensem"  and  other  lands  to  Henry,  and  the  best  English 
sources  are  again  agreed  that  he  surrendered  the  three  counties  of 
Northumberland,  Cumberland,  and  Westmoreland.  Robert  does 
not  mention  Northumberland.  Yet  it  certainly  was  transferred 
at  this  time.  It  seems  clear,  therefore,  that  the  "comitatum 
Lodonensem"  in  which  William  was  established  as  earl  by  his 
father  David,  in  1 1 5 3,  is  the  same  as  the  "comitatum  Lodon- 
ensem" surrendered  to  Henry  II  four  years  later,  and  was 
nothing  else  than  the  county  of  Northumberland.  The  entire 
course  of  the  history  forbids  the  supposition  that  both  Lothian 
and  Northumberland  were  included,  at  this  period,  under  the 
common  name  of  either  district  alone.  Diceto  copied  Robert 
de  Monte  as  he  found  him.2     In   the  thirteenth  century  these 

1  Robt.  De  Torig.  and  Rad.  de  Diceto,  Introds.,  Howlett  and  Stubbs.  Cf.  Early 
Kings,  II,  p.  427,  on  Diceto.  The  passage  relating  to  the  cession  of  Lothian  is 
regarded  as  an  interpolation. 

3  The  grossest  errors  were  thus  originated  or  perpetuated.  Fl.  Wig.  (An.  974)  says 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  67 

chronicles  were  embodied  in  the  work  of  the  monks  of  St. 
Albans,  who  now  eagerly  seized  on  anything  which  placed  Scot- 
land in  a  dependent  relation  to  England.  "Comitatum  Lodon- 
ensem"  could  mean  nothing  else  to  their  minds  than  Lothian. 
The  legendary  account  of  its  cession  in  975  was  embellished 
with  the  feudal  details  of  a  later  age,  and,  linked  with  this 
fabrication  recession  by  Malcolm  IV,  was  handed  down  for 
Edward  I  to  use  in  establishing  his  legal  and  historical  claim  to 
overlordship  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland  I*  It  is  significant  that 
no  writer  has  yet  explained,  or  attempted  to  explain,  how 
Lothian,  if  it  was  given  up  to  Henry  by  Malcolm  IV,  reappears 
in  possession  of  the  Scottish  crown.  With  the  growth  of  the 
Exchequer  and  other  court  records,  such  matters  were  carefully 
noted.  Yet  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Lothian  was  either 
granted  or  held  as  a  fief  of  the  English  crown.  Everything 
points  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  given  up  by  Malcolm, 
and  that  it  formed  a  part  of  the  independent  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land. 

The  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II  first  mention  Malcolm  IV  in 
1 1 57.  Lincolnshire  renders  account  "for  the  corrody  of  the  K. 
of  Scotland,   72I.    19s.    iod."       In  the  same   shire   the   sheriff 

Eadgar  had  a  fleet  of  3,600  ships,  1,200  each  on  the  east,  north,  and  west  coasts  of 
Britain.  Matt.  Paris,  copying  Fl.  Wig.,  adds  a  fleet  of  1,200  on  the  south,  but  retains 
the  total  of  3,600  !  On  the  scriptorium  see  Hardy,  Cat.  Brit.  Hist.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  x,  xxxv  ff. 
1  He  appealed  to  Diceto  in  1292,  and  ralued  his  work  so  highly  that  he  caused 
"  the  insertion  on  its  blank  pages  of  the  official  documents  touching  the  submission  of 
the  competitors  for  the  Scottish  crown  to  his  sovereign  arbitration."  (Stubbs,  Introd. 
Rad.  de  Die,  II,  p.  lviii.)  The  St.  Albans  chroniclers  brand  the  cession  of  975  as  false 
by  the  very  language  they  employ  and  the  usages  they  describe.  For  feudalism  was 
not  full-blown  in  England  in  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  either  in  its  institutions 
or  language.  Yet  they  ascribe  to  the  reign  of  Edgar  the  characteristic  feudal  features 
of  their  own  times.  Mr.  Robertson  says,  "  The  addition  of  Wendover  with  the  man- 
siones,  held  to  the  days  of  the  second  Henry,  was  purposely  framed  to  correspond 
with  the  supposed  cession  of  Lothian,  which  the  same  chronicler  has  added  to  the 
fiefs  surrendered  by  Malcolm  IV  to  the  English  king  in  1 157;  a  cession  which  has 
not  only  been  overlooked  by  every  contemporary  authority,  but  was  also  totally  ignored 
by  the  English  kings  themselves,  who  showed  an  unaccountable  negligence  in  exer- 
cising the  right,  which  they  would  unquestionably  have  acquired  by  such  an  act,  of 
summoning  the  baronage  of  the  Lothians  to  perform  the  military  service  due  to  their 
English  overlord."     (Rog.  Wend.,  An.  975  ;  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  392.) 


68  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

accounts  for  murders  ;  "in  the  land  of  the  K.  of  Scotland  2s. 
4d."  Yorkshire  has  a  corrody  of  123I.  os.  9d.  for  sixteen 
days,  and  renders  account  of  the  Danegeld  "  in  the  land  of  the 
K.  of  Scotland,  17I.  8s."  In  Nottingham  and  Derby  shires, 
"in  discharge  of  the  K.'s  corrody  at  Pech  (the  Peak  of  Derby- 
shire) by  Nigel  de  Broc,  iol.  i6d.  And  at  Nottingham  and 
Pech,  37I.  12s.  3d.  by  the  king's  writ.  And  paid  for  wine  at 
Pech,  72s.,  by  the  K.'s  writ."1  Perhaps  it  was  here,  in  the 
midst  of  hunting  and  other  festivities,  that  Henry  persuaded 
Malcolm  to  yield  to  his  demands. 

This  same  year  (1157)  finds  Malcolm  in  possession  in 
Northamptonshire.  The  next  year  the  sheriffs  of  Middlesex 
render  their  accounts;  "to  the  K.  of  Scotland  3s.  4d. ;"  in 
Northamptonshire,  "  4I.  ys.  gd.  on  his  domains;"  in  Rutland, 
9s.  6d.2  In  Yorkshire,  "William  de  Sumerville  owes  20  marks 
of  silver;  but  he  remains  in  the  land  of  the  K.  of  Scotland  in 
Lothian"  (sed  manet  in  terra  regis  Scotiae  in  Loeneis).  Mr. 
Burton  thinks  this  refers  to  Leeds  in  Yorkshire.  The  fact  that 
Doncaster  and  the  honor  of  Skipton  had  been  controlled  by 
King  David  of  Scotland  might  give  color  to  such  a  view.  But 
the  records  do  not  at  all  sustain  it.  William  owed  for  lands  in 
Yorkshire.  By  going  into  Lothian  he  entered  Scotch  territory, 
and  was  no  longer  amenable  to  English  jurisdiction,  as  he  cer- 
tainly would  have  been  in  Leeds  and  in  Lothian,  had  Lothian 
been  ceded  with  the  northern  counties,  or  been  held  as  an  Eng- 
lish fief.  This  is  one  of  the  points  covered  by  the  treaty  of 
Falaise  —  the  mutual  surrender,  by  either  king,  of  fugitives  from 
justice.  The  same  record  is  repeated  exactly  in  1159-60.  Nor 
is  there  any  indication  that  William  ever  paid  the  20  marks. 
Clearer  proof  could  not  be  desired  that  Lothian  was  not  at  this 
time,  as  Mr.  Freeman  and  others  style  it,  an  "  English  Earl- 
dom." Again,  in  1 163-4,  accounts  for  Norfolk  and  Suffolk 
state  that  "Richard  the  moneyer  owes  iol.,  but  has  fled  to  Scot- 
land." And  in  1165,  in  Buckingham  and  Bedford  shires, 
"Thomas  the  moneyer  owes  2  marks,  but  he  has  fled  into  Scot- 

•Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  42-6.  2  Ibid.,  Nos.  48-9,  52-4. 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  69 

land."     In  1167  "Thomas  the  moneyer  owes  2  marks.     He  has 

fled  into  Scotland  and  is  dead."1 

In  1 1  58,  the  year  following  the  meeting  at  Chester,  Malcolm 

met  Henry  at  Carlisle,  expecting  to  be  knighted,  but  for  some 

reason  the  ceremony  was  postponed.     The  trouble 

The  Meeting     probablv  was  over  the  distinction  between  liege  and 
at  Carlisle 

.     '  simple  homage.     The  latter  seems  to  have  been  the 

usual  form  by  which  the  kings  of  the  north  held 
their  English  fiefs.  The  former  was  based  on  military  service, 
and  Henry  may  now  have  required  it  of  Malcolm.  The  young 
king  yielded,  and  accompanied  Henry  to  the  siege  of  Toulouse 
—  a  siege  "  which  was  rendered  abortive  through  the  royal  scru- 
ples about  attacking  a  town  which  contained  the  person  of  his 
own  feudal  superior,  the  King  of  France."2 

Returning  from  Toulouse,  Malcolm  was  knighted  at  Tours, 
and  went  thence  to  his  own  kingdom.  While  he  was  at  Perth, 
a  riot  broke  out,  expressive  of  the  native  Scots'  disapproval  of 
Malcolm's  policy  in  going  to  Toulouse.  The  king  broke  up  the 
siege  of  the  conspirators  and  led  an  army  into  Galloway,  where 
the  disaffection  was  greatest.  This  district  enjoyed  a  semi-inde- 
pendence. It  was  related  politically  to  Scotland,  ecclesiastically 
to  England.  It  was  now  thoroughly  subdued,  and  "brought 
into  direct  feudal  subjection  to  the  Scottish  crown."3 

It  is  about  this  time  (1159)  that  the  Pipe  Rolls  first  make 

mention  of    Malcolm's   brother,   William   the    Lion.       He    had 

inherited  Northumberland  from  his  father,   but  it 

had  been  surrendered  by  Malcolm  to  King  Henry, 
the  Lion  J  °  J 

Now,  William   de    Vesci   renders    his    account   for 

1  Burton,  Hist.  Scot.,  I,  p.  444,  note ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  54,  66,  68,  93, 
99-100,  109.  Cf.  No.  333;  Madox,  Hist,  of  Excheq.,  I,  p.  3.  "Loeneis"  was 
'terra  regis  Scotiae "  —  part  of  the  "kingdom  of  Scotland"  just  as  "terra  regis 
Angliae  "  was  the  kingdom  of  England. 

"Hoveden,  An.  1 158  ;  Triveti,  An.  1 159 ;  Hailes' Annals,  I,  p.  117,  note;  Early 
Kings,  I,  p.  354,  note.  Edward  III  held  the  duchy  of  Guyenne  by  liege  service. 
With  the  Scot  kings,  "  The  obligation  of  service  was  subsequently  evaded  by  subin- 
feoffing  the  fief,  which  imposed  this  duty  on  the  Vavassor,  or  tenant  of  the  Holder-in- 
chief." 

3Hoveden,  An.  1159-60,  Introd.,  p.  xvi ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  357. 


7°  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Northumberland,  "In  pardons  by  the  K.'s  writ ;  in  Tindale,  iol., 
which  the  brother  (William)  of  the  K.  of  Scotland  has."  This 
was  conferred  on  William,  says  Mr.  Bain,  "possibly  as  a  surro- 
gate for  the  surrender  of  his  elder  brother's  claims ;  and  which, 
as  a  Liberty,  was  held  by  simple  homage  uninterruptedly  by  the 
Scottish  kings,  till  confiscated  by  Edward  I  on  the  deposition 
of  John  de  Balliol ;  shown  by  its  annual  recurrence  in  the  Pipe 
Rolls,  with  one  exception,  when  it  would  seem  to  have  been 
temporarily  seized  by  Henry  II  after  William  the  Lion's  rebel- 
lion and  capture."  ■ 

Some  years  later  Malcolm  again  set  out  for  England,  but  was 
overtaken,  while  en  route,  with  a  serious  illness.  After  his  con- 
valescence at  Doncaster,  Hoveden  says  "pax  firma  facta  est 
inter  ilium  et  regem  Angliae."  The  St.  Albans  chroniclers  state 
that  he  was  present  at  Woodstock  about  this  time  to  do  hom- 
age to  the  younger  Henry,  as  David  had  done  to  Matilda  (An. 
1 163),  but  the  best  authorities  are  silent  on  this  point.  As  it 
was  simply  a  repetition  of  homage,  with  a  reservation  of  fealty 
to  the  reigning  king,  it  could  have  had  no  special  significance." 
Malcolm  died  in  December,  1165  A.  D.,  at  the  early  age  of 
twenty-four,  apparently  in  possession  of  fiefs  in  the  shires  of 
Cambridge,  Huntingdon,  Northampton,  Buckingham,  and  Bed- 
ford.3 The  appellation  of  "  Maiden"  may  have  arisen  on  account 
of  a  delicacy  of  constitution  inherited  from  Queen  Margaret, 
but  he  seems  never  to  have  shown  aught  but  a  brave  and  sturdy 
spirit,  entirely  in  keeping  with  that  of  his  race. 

His  brother  William  the  Lion  (1 165-121  5)  at  once  succeeded 
him  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.  The  next  year  he  either 
accompanied  or  followed  Henry  to  Normandy.  No 
is  ccessi  mention  is  made  of  homage,  but  there  seems  to  be 
no  doubt  that  William  did  homage  for  his  English  holdings, 
hoping  perhaps  by  his  promptness  in  service  to  gain  some  enlarge- 
ment of  them  in  the  north.     There  is  no  authority  for  the  infer- 

1  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  64,  133;  Introd.,  p.  xvii. 

'Palgrave,  Eng.  Com.,  II,  p.  cccxxxv,  and  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  358,  note. 

3  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  70,  71,  85,  86,  91,  93,  95. 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  7 1 

ence  of  some  that  William  must  resort  to  the  English  court  to 
do  homage  for  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.  He  had  already 
entered  i?ito  possession  of  it.  But  he  must  do  homage  for  the 
English  fiefs  his  brother  Malcolm  had  held,  before  he  could 
receive  seizin  of  them.  Moreover,  Cospatric,  earl  of  Northum- 
berland, died  at  this  very  juncture,  and  it  is  quite  in  accord  with 
William's  later  efforts  to  conclude  that  his  attendance  on  Henry 
was,  in  truth,  in  the  hopes  of  recovering  this  coveted  district. 
It  is  also  worth  remembering,  as  Mr.  Eyton  points  out,  that  the 
duchess  of  Bretagne  was  William's  sister,  and  that  her  infant 
daughter  Constance  was  the  object  of  Henry's  most  considerate 
speculations.  It  is  evident  that  William  possessed  Huntingdon 
and  subinfeoffed  it  to  his  brother  David,  who  is  called  "  Hun- 
teduniensem  comitem."  The  castle  of  Huntingdon  was  surren- 
dered after  William's  capture  in  1 1 74.  But  in  1 185,  in  a  council 
at  London,  Henry  "reddidet  Willelmo  regi  Scotiae  comitatum 
de  Huntedona,"  though  many  others  were  offering  large  sums 
for  its  possession.  Hoveden  also  says  that  on  the  death  of 
Simon,  earl  of  Huntingdon,  the  king  restored  (reddidet)  that 
county  to  William,  who  straightway  gave  (dedit)  it  to  his  brother 
David.  "What  was  given  back  must  have  been  taken  away,  and 
William  must  have  been  in  possession  of  the  fief  before  his 
capture."1 

In  1 167  William  de  Vesci  renders  account  from  Northum- 
berland. "In  lands  granted  to  the  brother2  of  the  K.  of  Scot- 
land, iol.  in  Tindale Kiohher,  the  'man'  of  the  K.  of 

Scotland,  owes  1  mark  for  failure  in  coming  before  the  justices. 
Turchil  Cadiol  owes  2  marks  for  same  plea.  Adam  de  Nun- 
newic  owes  40s.  for  same  plea."  Had  Lothian  been  an  English 
earldom,  the  sub-tenants  might  have  been  summoned  before  the 
justices  and  fined,  as  they  were  in  Northumberland.     The  record 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I.  No.  107;  Itinerary  of  Hen.  II,  p.  92;  Wm.  Newb.,  Lib. 
II,  Cap.  31,  37  ;  Ben.  Pet.,  Rog.  Hov.,  An.  1 166,  1184-5;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  362  ; 
Hailes'  Annals,  I.  p.  124,  notes. 

aThis  expression  occurs  from  11 67  to  1 17 1,  when  it  is  changed  to  "the  king  of 
Scotland."  William  probably  continued  to  hold  the  fief  after  he  hecame  king,  though 
the  form  of  the  account  was  not  changed  till  1171. 


7  2  ANGLO-SCO TCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TIONS 

is  repeated  in  1168,  and  in  1169  these  "men  of  the  K.  of  Scot- 
land in  Tindale  account  for  6  marks ;  pardoned  by  the  K.'s  writ 
to  the  K.  of  Scotland  himself,  6  marks,  and  he  is  quit."  Wil- 
liam also  has  fiefs  in  Buckingham  and  Bedford  shires,  in  Cam- 
bridge and  Huntingdon,  in  Northampton,  Warwick,  and  Leicester 
shires.  Rutland  reappears  in  1169.  Richard  de  Humez  ren- 
ders account  of  "  10s.  2d.  for  murders  of  Wrangedich  hundred; 
in  pardons  by  the  K.'s  writ  to  the  K.  of  Scotland,  5s.  iod.,  and 
he  owes  4s.  4d.  He  also  accounts  for  26s.  6d.  for  the  amerce- 
ment of  the  wapentake  of  Roteland ;  in  pardon  to  the  K.  of 
Scotland  26s.  6d."  ■ 

But  as  long  as  the  hereditary  claims  of  his  family  in  North- 
umberland were  not  conceded,  William  was  dissatisfied.  No 
open  breach  occurred,  however,  and  in  11 70  he  and  his  brother 
David,  earl  of  Huntingdon,  were  present  at  the  coronation  of 
the  younger  Henry,  where  they  took  the  oath  of  fealty  to  him, 
saving  their  allegiance  to  his  father.2 

The  struggle  with  the  church  had  now  reached  its  climax  in 
the    murder   of   Becket.     Louis   VII   had   also   become   hostile 

again,  regarding  it  as  an  insult   that  his   daughter 
pposi  ion   0     Margaret  who  had  married  the  younger  Henry,  had 

not  been  crowned  with  him.  The  ceremony  was, 
therefore,  repeated  in  1 172,  at  Winchester.  Soon  after,  at  the 
instigation  of  Louis,  Henry  demanded  of  his  father  either  Eng- 
land or  Normandy  as  his  portion.  The  king  refused,  and  the 
son  fled  across  the  channel  to  his  father-in-law.  A  deep-laid 
conspiracy  was  soon  matured.     Henry  had  alienated  many.     His 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  108-9,  1II»  I1[3-I23»  125-128,  130.  Though  Lothian 
and  Northumberland  were  sometimes  confused  by  the  chroniclers,  a  sharp  distinction 
seems  to  have  heen  made  in  the  king's  Exchequer.  That  Lothian  was  not  included 
in  Northumberland  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  a  debtor  who  escaped  thither  was  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  English  king's  treasury  officials  and  justices,  while  in  Tynedale 
he  was  not. 

'Fordun,  Lib.  VIII,  Cap.  12,  13;  Ben.  Pet.,  Rog.  Hov.,  An.  11 70.  Diceto  says 
William  sought  from  Henry  "  quae  in  provincia  Northanhimbrorum  avo  suo  regi  David 
fuerant  donata,  tradita,  cartis  confirmata,  quae  etiam  fuerant  ab  ipso  tempore  longo 
possessa" — and  that  this  was  one  of  the  causes  which  led  to  war.  Wendover  copies 
Diceto,  but  characteristically  omits  the  phrase  "cartis  confirmata."     (An.  1 173.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  73 

barons  were  discontented.  He  had  weakened  their  military  and 
judicial  power  by  withdrawing  the  office  of  sheriff  from  their 
control.  He  was  jealous  of  all  authority  which  did  not  emanate 
from  himself,  and  delighted  to  bring  down  the  haughty  pride  of 
his  nobles.  Bountiful  to  favorites,  he  was  unceasingly  vindictive 
toward  all  who  opposed  his  will.  He  was  a  strange  combination 
of  genius  and  affability,  of  passion  and  base  duplicity.  He 
reaped  from  his  sons  the  harvest  of  which  he  had  himself  sown 
the  seed.  The  love  of  his  wife,  Eleanor  of  Poitou,  had  turned 
to  bitter  hatred,  and  she  now  urged  on  her  son,  the  young  Henry, 
in  his  course  of  rebellion.  Richard  and  Geoffrey  in  Aquitaine 
were  among  the  disaffected.  The  promise  of  Northumberland 
to  William  the  Lion  made  him  a  ready  partisan  in  the  conspiracy, 
while  his  brother  David  was  to  be  confirmed  in  the  honor  of 
Huntingdon  and  to  receive  "in  augmentum  ....  totam  Cante- 
brigesiriam."1  Henry  sought  reconciliation  with  Eleanor  and 
his  sons  through  the  mediation  of  Louis  VII  and  the  bishops  of 
Normandy.     The  prelates  replied  in  Louis'  behalf, 

He  said  that  he  had  already  been  too  often  the  dupe  of  your  arti- 
fice and  hypocrisy ;  that  you  had  repeatedly  and  on  the  slightest  pre- 
tenses, violated  your  most  sacred  engagements;  and  that  after  the 
experience  which  he  had  had  of  your  duplicity,  he  had  determined 
never  more  to  put  faith  in  your  promises. 

By  Easter,  1 173,  a  plot  which  included  the  kings  of  Scotland 
and  France,  the  counts  of  Flanders  and  Boulogne,  Richard, 
Geoffrey,  and  the  young  King  Henry,  besides  the  earl  of  Lei- 
cester and  many  of  the  barons  in  north,  east,  and  middle  Eng- 
land, was  well  under  way.2 

The  king  of  Scotland  was  first  in  the  field,  crossing  the 
border  in  the  late  summer.  Depredations  had  apparently  been 
begun  some  time  earlier,  judging  from  the  story  of  the  Pipe 
Rolls.  In  Northumberland  there  is  account  of  £20  "to  retain 
knights  in  the  castle  of  Carlisle,"  for  the  damage  caused  by  the 

1  Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet.,  An.  1 172-3.     "  Concessit  enim  Willelmo  regi  Scotiae  pro 
homagio  et  servitio  suo,  totam  Northumberlandam  usque  ad  Tinam." 
"Lingard,  Hist.  Eng.,  II,  p.  196;  Ben.  Pet.,  An.  1 173. 


74  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Scots  ;  also  £,20  each  for  the  castle  of  Prudho   and  for  New- 
castle-on-Tyne ;  all  by  the  writs  of  Richard  de  Luci.     The  abbey 
of  Hyde  in  Hampshire    reports  "15I.  of  knights' 
1am   joins  scuj.age  for  ^e  army  0f  Scotland."      From  Carlisle 
Henry's  °  * 

Enemies  Robert   Traite  "  owes   [is   unable  to  pay]   27I.  6s. 

6d.  through  the  waste  of  the  county  from  the 
war."  '  The  apparent  sympathy  of  the  bishop  of  Durham  with 
the  rebels  gave  William  a  free  passage  through  his  territory. 
But  on  the  approach  of  a  force  from  the  south  under  the  king's 
justiciar  and  constable,  he  retired  into  Lothian,  whither  he  was 
followed  by  the  English  forces.  Diceto  says  a  truce  was  asked 
for  by  William,  but  Hoveden  and  Newburgh  state  that  it  was 
sought  by  the  English  that  they  might  return  southward  to 
oppose  the  landing  of  the  earl  of  Leicester.  William,  apparently 
ignorant  of  the  straits  in  which  his  foes  were  placed,  granted  a 
truce  till  the  feast  of  St.  Hilary.  It  was  then  renewed  by  him 
till  Easter,  1174,  in  consideration  of  300  marks  which  he 
received  through  the  bishop  of  Durham  —  a  proceeding  which 
shows  on  which  side  the  desire  for  a  truce  lay.  As  soon  as 
Easter  was  past  Earl  David  hastened  south  to  command  the 
forces  of  the  earl  of  Leicester,  who  had  been  taken  prisoner. 
King  William  also  took  the  field  again.  He  initiated  a  blockade 
of  Carlisle,  and,  withdrawing  part  of  his  army,  successfully 
invaded  Northumberland,  taking  a  number  of  castles.  Return- 
ing to  Carlisle  he  received  a  promise  of  surrender  if  relief  did 
not  come  by  Michaelmas.  He  then  began  the  siege  of  Prudhoe 
castle  on  the  Tyne,  but,  hearing  of  the  approach  of  the  York- 
shire barons,  he  raised  the  siege  and  began  to  withdraw  to  the 
north.  Reaching  Alnwick  he  invested  it,  but  sent  away  to 
ravage  the  country  the  earls  Duncan  and  Angus,  and  Richard  de 
Moreville,  "  fere  cum  toto  exercitu  suo."  He  himself  remained 
"  cum  privata  familia  sua."  The  Yorkshire  barons  reached  New- 
castle on  the  night  of  July  12,  about  four  hundred  in  number. 
They  questioned  whether  to  proceed.  But  news  of  William's 
situation  having  reached  them,  they  hastened  on  early  the  next 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  Nos.  129-31. 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  FIRST  PLANTAGENET  75 

morning.  A  dense  fog  concealed  them  from  their  enemies,  who 
were  ravaging  the  neighboring  country,  but  they  were  in  constant 
danger,  and  the  more  faint-hearted  urged  an  immediate  return. 
Bernard  de  Balliol,  however,  swore  that  he  would  not  retreat, 
and  the  advance  continued.  The  lifting  fog  disclosed  Alnwick 
castle,  with  William  and  sixty  of  his  knights  tilting  in  a  neigh- 
boring meadow.  At  first  he  took  the  barons  for  his  own  men, 
but,  learning  his  mistake,  he  rode  at  them  alone,  in  the  most 
rash  and  foolhardy  way,  apparently  challenging  them  to  knightly 
combat.  But  the  barons  were  seeking  more  important  prizes 
than  those  of  the  tourney ;  the  king's  horse  was 
slain,  and  he  himself  taken  prisoner.  His  followers 
did  not  attempt  flight,  preferring  a  voluntary  surrender  to  the 
imputation  of  having  deserted  their  culpable  lord  and  king, 
Wendover  adds  that  the  Scots  who  were  slain  were  said  to 
be  without  numbering  !  x 

Henry,  meanwhile,  had  learned  of  the  plan  for  a  naval  attack 
on  England  by  his  son  and  Philip,  count  of  Flanders,  and  was 
crossing  the  channel  from  Barfleur  in  a  storm  which  kept  the 
hostile  fleet  at  anchor  in  the  harbor  of  Gravelines.  On  landing, 
he  journeyed  swiftly  to  the  shrine  of  the  martyr  Becket,  doing 
abject  penance  there  for  his  sins.  Passing  on  to  London  he  was 
detained  there  some  days  by  a  fever,  brought  on  by  exposure 
and  fatigue,  but  dispelled  by  the  good  news  that  William  had 
fallen  into  his  hands.  This  event  dissipated  the  forces  of  the 
rebellion.  David  at  once  returned  to  Scotland,  and  within  three 
weeks  England  was  quiet.  The  records  of  the  time  all  breathe 
the  spirit  of  war.  Northumberland  renders  account  "  in  lands 
granted  in  Tindale  which  the  K.of  Scotland  had  (habuit),  10  1." 
The  sheriff  accounts  for  46s.  8d.  "  of  the  issue  of  Aedgar  Unni- 
dering,  who  has  gone  into  Scotland  to  the  K.'s  enemies." 
"  Robert  de  Stuteville  [Yorkshire]  renders  no  account  this  year 

lDiceto,  Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet,  An.  1 173-4;  Wm.  Newb.,  Lib.  II,  Cap.  33.  It  is 
noticeable  that  Hoveden  speaks  of  Lothian  as  "  terrain  regis  Scotiae,"  while  Newburgh 
says  of  the  Tweed,  "  quae  regnum  Anglicum  Scotticumque  disterminat  "  —  statements 
which  hardly  agree  with  the  theory  that  Malcolm  IV  ceded  Lothian  to  Henry  II  with 
the  northern  counties,  and  that  it  was  an  English  earldom. 


76  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

of  the  farms  of  the  county,  nor  of  the  K.'s  dues  therein,  as  he 
has  not  yet  had  the  K.'s  warrant  for  his  expenses  laid  out  dur- 
ing the  war,  in  the  K.'s  service."  Adam,  son  of  Robert  Truite 
[Carlisle]',  also  renders  no  account,  "  as  he  has  received  nothing 
this  year  by  reason  of  the  war,  as  he  says."  Southampton  again 
appears  as  fitting  out  the  Esnecce  "  when  she  crossed  the  sea 
with  the  Earl  of  Leicester  and  other  prisoners."  Henry  crossed 
over  to  Barfieur  and  bestowed  his  prisoners  at  Caen,  August  8. 
A  day  or  two  later  they  were  taken  to  Falaise.  Peace  soon  fol- 
lowed with  the  king's  sons  and  with  France.  At  Louis'  inter- 
cession most  of  the  prisoners  were  released,  but  toward  the 
king  of  Scotland  Henry  was  inexorable.  A  surrender  of  the 
independence  of  his  kingdom  was  the  price  at  which  William 
bought  his  freedom.1 

'Ben.    Pet.,    Hoveden,  Diceto,   An.   1 174;     Bain,    Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.   132-5, 
137-8. 


CHAPTER    V. 

INDEPENDENCE  LOST  AND  REGAINED  :    OR,  THE    TREATY  OF    FALAISE 
AND    THE    CHARTER    OF    RELEASE. 

On  September  30,  1174,  an  agreement  was  reached  between 
Henry,  his  sons,  and  Louis  VII.     This  was  embodied  in  a  writ- 
ten manifesto,    on    October  30,  at  Falaise,  where 
_  .  .  the  royal  family  seems  to  have  assembled,  and  where 

the  state  prisoners  were.  About  the  first  of  Decem- 
ber William  came  to  terms  with  Henry.  The  instrument  was 
dated  at  Falaise,  but  the  agreement  was  embodied  in  another 
charter,  with  additional  witnesses,  at  Valognes,  December  8. 
On  the  nth  the  king  of  Scotland  obtained  release,  and  set  sail 
for  England.'  This  seems  to  be  the  true  explanation  of  the 
divergence  in  the  various  authorities  regarding  this  treaty. 
Hoveden  and  Benedict,  of  Peterborough,  both  give  it. 

Diceto  has  an  abridged  statement  of  it,  which  Mr.  Robertson 
conclusively  shows  to  be  by  a  later  hand  than  his.  It  mentions  only 
two  castles  (Roxburgh  and  Berwick)  to  be  surrendered  by  Wil- 
liam, the  writer  being  apparently  ignorant  "  not  only  that  Stirl- 
ing, Jedburgh,  and  Edinburgh  were  also  among  the  fortresses 
stipulated  to  be  made  over  by  the  Scots,  but  that  the  latter  was 
actually  given  up."  The  document  is  given  in  its  fullest  form  in 
the  Foedera,  which  agrees  in  general  with  the  Liber  Niger,  except 
as  to  the  number  of  witnesses.  The  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer 
differs  radically  from  the  above,  both  in  substance  and  in  the 
names  of  witnesses.  But  in  essentials  they  all  agree  in  the  fol- 
lowing provisions  :2 

1  Foedera,  I,  p.  37 ;  Itinerary  Hen.  II,  pp.  184   ff. 

3  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  No.  139;  Hearne,  Liber  Niger,  p.  36;  Early  Kings,  I, 
p.  374,  note  ;  Norgate,  Ang.  Kings,  II,  p.  166,  note  ;  also  Hoveden,  Benedictus,  and 
Diceto,  Ad.  an.,  I,  p.  39. 

77 


78  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

William  was  to  become  the  liegeman  of  Henry  for  Scotland 

and  for  all  his  other  lands.1     He  was  to  do  fealty  to  to  him  as 

his   liege   lord,  and  to  his  son   Henry,  "  salva  fide 
The  King  _        .  ?  „      .  .         .  ,,        ,  .         ,      J\ 

Domini  Regis  patns  sui,     as  his  other  "  men     were 

wont  to  do. 

All   the   bishops,  abbots,  and  clergy  of  the  land   of  the   king 

of  Scots,  and  of  his   successors,  were  to   do  fealty  to  the  king 

„,,.    ^     *.       as  their  liege   lord    at   his   pleasure,   as   his    other 
The  Church  &  r 

bishops  are  wont  to  do,  and  to   Henry,  his  son,  and 

to  their  heirs. 

William  and  David,  his  brother,  with  the  barons  and  other 
men  of  the  king,  also  conceded  to  Henry  that  the  Church  of 
Scotland  should  make  such  subjection  to  the  Church  of  England 
as  it  ought,  and  was  wont,  to  make  in  the  times  of  the  kings  of 
England,  his  predecessors. 

The  bishops  of  St.  Andrews  and  Dunkeld,  with  the  abbot  of 
Dunfermline  and  the  prior  of  Coldingham,  specially  agreed  that 
the  Church  of  England  should  have  that  authority  over  the 
Scottish  church  which  by  right  it  ought  to  have,  and  that  they 
would  not  go  contrary  to  the  right  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  in  security  thereof  rendered  liege  fealty  to  King  Henry  and 
his  son.2 

The  earls,  barons,  and  other  men  of  the  land  of  the  king  of 
Scots,  at  the  pleasure  of  King  Henry,  were  to  do  homage  and 
.  .  fidelity  to  him  as  their  liege  lord  against  all  men,  as 
his  other  "men"  were  wont  to  do,  and  to  his  son 
and  his  heirs,  salva  fide,  etc.  Likewise  the  heirs  of  the  king  of 
Scots  and  of  his  barons  and  men  were  to  do  homage  and  fealty  to 
the  heirs  of  their  lord  the  king,  against  all  men. 

William  and  his  barons  pledged  their  faith  to  compel  those 
of  the  barons  and  clergy  who  were  absent  when  the  treaty  was 
Ab      .  made   to  yield  allegiance  and  fealty  to  Henry,  and 

to  give  such  hostages  as  he  should  desire. 

w 

1  Tindale  seems  to  have  been  temporarily  forfeited.  It  reappears  in  1 175.  Some 
time  between  1165  and  1 182  William  grants  a  charter  in  favor  of  the  church  of  St. 
Mary  in  Furneis,  Westmoreland.     (Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  143,158,  165). 

*  Hailes'  Annals,  I,  pp.  130-I. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  79 

The  king  of  Scots  and  his  men  agreed  that  they  would  receive 

no  fugitive  by  reason  of  felony  from  the  land  of  their  lord  the 

king,  either  in  Scotland  or  in  their  other  lands,  unless 

urren  er  ^e  should  be  willing  to  come  to  trial  in  the  court  of 

Fugitives  . 

his  lord  the  king,  and  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of 

the  court.  They  were  to  take  all  such  as  speedily  as  possible, 
and  restore  them  to  the  king  or  his  justiciars  or  bailiffs  in  Eng- 
land. Similar  provisions  were  to  be  enforced  against  fugitives 
from  Scotland,  but  they  might,  if  they  chose,  stand  trial  in  the 
English  curia.  (This  clearly  marks  the  dependent  position  of 
Scotland  at  this  period,  and  the  absence  of  this  phenomenon  at 
all  other  times  till  Edward  I  as  clearly  marks  the  fact  of  an 
independent  kingdom.) 

The  new  relations  between  the  kings  were  not  to  affect  the 
holders  of  fiefs  under  either.     They  were  to  continue  to  hold  as 
they  had  held,  and  ought  to  hold. 

„  ,„.  As  a  guarantee  for  the  faithful  observance  and 

Holdings  ° 

execution  of  this  convention  and  fine,  William  was 

to    deliver  over    to  Henry  the  castles    of   Roxburgh,  Berwick, 

Jedburgh,  Edinburgh,  and  Stirling,  in  which  English  garrisons 

_       ...  were  to  be  maintained  at  the  expense  of  the  Scot- 

Securities  r 

tish  king. 

He  was  also  to  deliver  up  as  hostages  his  brother  David,  four 
earls,  Richard  de  Moreville,  the  constable,  besides  barons  and 
knights.  The  king  and  his  brother  were  to  be  released  as  soon 
as  the  castles  had  been  handed  over,  and  the  earls  and  barons  as 
soon  thereafter  as  they  furnished  lawful  sons,  or  their  nearest 
heirs,  as  hostages  in  their  stead. 

The  bishops,  earls,  and  barons  also  agreed  that  if  William 
should  seek  to  withdraw  the  allegiance  he  had  sworn  to  Henry 
and  his  son,  they  would  hold  to  the  English  kingas  their  liege  lord, 
against  the  king  of  the  Scots  and  all  enemies  of  their  lord  the 
king,  the  bishops  promising  to  lay  the  kingdom  under  an  inter- 
dict till  William  should  return  to  his  allegiance. 

Thus  was  the  subjection  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland  com- 
pleted.    The   "  peace  and  final  concord  "  to  which  William  had 


80  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATLONS 

agreed   as   a  prisoner  in  chains  at  Falaise,  in   the  presence  of 

the  English  kings  and  their  clergy  and  nobles,  was  now  ratified 

in  the  church  of  St.  Peter,  at  York,  by  the  bishops, 

earls,  barons,  and  knights  of  Scotland,  who   swore 
dependent  _  ,   ,.  TT  ,.  ..... 

K'    dm  fidelity  to    Henry,  his  son,  and  their  heirs,  against 

all  men,  as  their  liege  lords.1  Henry  availed  him- 
self of  his  opportunity  to  the  utmost.  Nor  did  he  fail  to  exact 
rigorously  the  conditions  imposed,  unless  for  his  own  reasons  it 
pleased  him  to  remit  them.  To  have  taken  the  life  of  his  cap- 
tive would  have  been  abhorrent  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  times. 
Confinement  would  only  have  raised  up  some  other  Scottish 
leader.  He  acted  only  as  William  and  the  younger  Henry  would 
have  acted,  had  their  conspiracy  been  successful.  He  gained  a 
forced,  but  distinct  acknowledgment  of  his  supremacy  as  over 
lord  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland  —  an  overlordship  of  which  the 
Chronicles  give  striking  evidence.  But,  had  the  English  kings 
possessed  such  rights  of  supremacy  previous  to  this  time,  Henry 
would  have  gained  nothing  new  from  his  captive,  and  the  treaty 
of  Falaise  would  have  been  a  farce.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
theory  and  claim  of  English  overlordship  be  admitted,  the 
necessity  of  this  document  shows  conclusively  the  hitherto 
successful  denial  of  and  resistance  to  every  such  theory  and 
claim  by  the  Scots. 

The  treaty  remained  in  force  for  fifteen  years,  during  which 
William  and  his  barons  were  often  summoned  by  their  feudal 
superior.  Scottish  kings  were  not  strangers  at  the  court  of  the 
kingdom  in  which  they  held  fiefs.  But  the  presence  of  the 
barons  and  clergy  was  new,  and  shows  the  changed  condition  of 
the  northern  kingdom. 

The  clergy  were  the  first  to  experience  the  effects  of  the  new 
order.  The  Assizes  of  Clarendon  were  re-enacted  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Northampton,  early  in  1176.  At  the  command  of  Henry, 
the  Scottish  bishops,  abbots,  and  priors  came  to  make  their 
promised  subjection  to  the  English  church.  When  it  was 
demanded  of  them  by  the  king,  they  replied  that  their  predeces- 

1  Hoveden,  Aug.  10, 11 75. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  8 1 

sors  had  never  owed  any  such  subjection,  neither  ought  they  to 
render  it.  Roger  of  York  insisted  on  his  claims,  specially  over 
the  bishops  of  Glasgow  and  Candida  Casa,  adducing  as  proofs 
the  papal  bulls  he  held  in  his  hand.  Contention  over  the  dis- 
puted jurisdiction  of  Canterbury  and  York  at  once  grew  hot. 
Jocelyn,  bishop  of  Glasgow,  declared  his  see  was  "the  special 
daughter  of  the  Roman  church,"1  and  was  now  exempt  from  all 
subjection  by  archbishops  or  bishops,  whatever  its  previous  rela- 
tion to  York.    Either  at  the  instigation  of  the  arch- 

e      urc         bishop  of  Canterbury,  who  hoped  thus  to  gain  the 
Escapes  .      .     .  r     ,        o         •  ,       f  ,  • 

g  ..    ,.  submission   or   the   Scottish   clergy  to   his   see,  or 

because  the  king  dreaded  to  arbitrate  in  a  very 
complicated  dispute,  Henry  dismissed  the  clergy  of  the  north, 
"nulla  subjectione  facta  Anglicanae  ecclesia."2 

In  1 1 80  a  new  dispute  arose,  in  which  William  took  a  lead- 
ing part.  The  bishop  of  St.  Andrews  died,  and  the  canons  of  the 
church  elected  John  Scot  as  his  successor.  But  William  had 
elected  his  chaplain,  Hugh,  to  the  position  and  ordered  him  to  be 
consecrated  by  the  bishops  of  the  kingdom.  John  appealed  to 
Rome,  and  Alexander  III  sent  his  subdeacon,  Alexius,  to  learn 
the  merits  of  the  case.  He  at  length  deposed  Hugh  and  caused 
John  to  be  confirmed  and  consecrated.  William  apparently 
acquiesced  in  this  decision,  but  immediately  after  the  consecra- 
tion he  banished  John  from  the  kingdom.  During  the  struggle 
Roger,  archbishop  of  York,  was  appointed  papal  legate,  with 
power  to  lay  the  kingdom  of  Scotland  under  an  interdict  if  Wil- 
liam remained  obdurate.  The  king  would  not  yield.  The  sen- 
tence of  banishment  was  renewed  against  John  and  his  uncle, 
bishop  of  Aberdeen,  who  fled  to  Henry  in  Normandy.  William 
was  excommunicated  and  his  kingdom  laid  under  an  interdict. 
Pressure  was  also  brought  to  bear  on  Henry,  who  summoned 
William  to  Normandy  to  answer  the  complaints  of  the  bishops 

xBy  bull  of  Alex.  Ill,  1175  ;  repeated  by  Lucius,  1 182.  (H.  and  S.,  Counc,  II,  Pt. 
I,  pp.  40,  47.) 

2Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet.,  An.  1176.  See  Bain,  I,  No.  147,  for  the  forged  letter  of 
William  to  Alex.  Ill,  urging  the  claims  of  York. 


82  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

( 1 1 8 1 ) .  It  was  then  agreed  that  Matthew  should  be  restored 
to  his  see.  John  was  to  give  up  St.  Andrews,  but  was  to  have 
any  other  bishopric  he  chose,  with  the  chancellorship,  and  forty 
marks  annually  from  St.  Andrews,  in  addition  to  his  other  reve- 
nues. The  pope  would  not  agree  to  this,  and  ordered  the  under- 
clergy  of  St.  Andrews  to  make  submission  to  John  as  their  supe- 
rior, on  pain  of  suspension.  William  at  once  expelled  all  who 
obeyed,  and  interdict  and  excommunication  were  renewed.  The 
death  of  Alexander  and  Roger,  a  little  later,  opened  the  way  to 
more  pleasant  relations  with  the  new  vicar  of  St.  Peter,  Lucius 
III." 

Henry  jealously  guarded  against  any  papal  interference  in 
Scotland,  looking  toward  a  re-establishment  of  the  kingdom  on 
an  independent  basis.  Nor  would  he  permit  Vivian,  the  legate 
for  Scotland,  to  go  there  till  he  gave  oath  that  he  would  do 
nothing  against  the  wishes  of  the  king.  Vivian  had  been  sent 
for  secretly  by  William  and  his  barons  to  settle  the  question  of 
the  dependence  of  the  Scottish  church  on  the  English  church. 
It  was  not  till  1188,  just  before  Henry's  death,  that  the  bull  of 
Clement  III  set  the  matter  at  rest.* 

William's  capture  in    11 74  was  no  sooner  assured  than  the 

unruly  factions  in  his  kingdom  broke  into  open  revolt.  The  chief 

disturbance  was  in  Galloway.     This  province,  since 

about  1 100,  had  been  ruled  by  Fergus,  a  semi-inde- 
m  Scotland  ,  '.  TT  J  ,,,,,, 

pendent  prince.     He  was  conquered  by  Malcolm 

IV  in  1 160,  and  soon  after  retired  to  Holyrood  Abbey,  leaving 

his  title  and  lands  to  his  sons  Gilbert  and  Uchtred,  who  were 

waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  regain  their  former  independent 

position.     They  now  returned  with  the  Scottish  army  from  the 

invasion  of   England  to  their  own  land,  destroyed  the  strong - 

"Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet.,  An.  1 180-2. 

a  Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet. ;  H.  and  S.,  Counc,  II,  Pt.  I,  pp.  10,  273.  Roger  of  York  was 
legate  for  England  till  November,  1 1 8 1.  The  bishop  of  Candida  Casa,  a  see  not 
among  those  revived  by  David,  but  apparently  established  by  Fergus  of  Galloway, 
refused  the  summons  of  Vivian,  and  when  excommunicated  for  not  attending  a  coun- 
cil of  Scottish  bishops  received  shelter  from  his  metropolitan,  Roger  of  York.  The 
question  of  disputed  jurisdiction  was  not  settled  till  the  fourteenth  century. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  83 

holds  by  which  their  subjection  had  been  secured,  drove  out  the 
men  of  the  king  of  Scots,  and  killed  the  English  and  French 
there.  At  the  same  time  they  sent  envoys  to  Henry  with  offers 
of  their  fealty.  Gilbert  then  treacherously  attacked  his  brother, 
depriving  him  of  lands  and  even  of  life,  as  a  result  of  the  cruel 
blinding  and  mutilation  which  he  inflicted.  Thus,  when  Henry 
sent  his  chaplain,  Roger  of  Hoveden,  from  Normandy  to  Car- 
lisle, to  negotiate  with  the  princes  of  Galloway,  Gilbert  was  sole 
ruler,  eager  to  escape  from  William's  overlordship  and  the 
almost  certain  punishment  for  his  crime.  As  an  inducement  for 
Henry  to  receive  him  "in  manu  sua"  he  offered  an  annual 
tribute  of  two  thousand  marks  of  silver,  and  of  cattle  and  hogs 
five  hundred  each.  The  envoys,  however,  having  heard  of  Gil- 
bert's cruelty,  decided  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  king,  and  he, 
either  for  this  cause,  or  more  probably  because  William  had 
become  his  vassal  for  Galloway,  refused  to  change  Gilbert's 
relations  with  the  king  of  Scotland.1  As  soon  as  the  ratification 
of  the  treaty  was  completed  at  York,  Henry  gave  William  per- 
mission to  retire  to  Scotland  and  to  prepare  an  expedition 
against  Gilbert,  because  of  the  withdrawal  of  his  fealty  and  the 
murder  of  his  brother.  The  following  autumn  William  met 
Henry  at  Feckenham,  bringing  Gilbert  in  his  train,  who  swore 
fealty,  as  the  other  Scottish  barons  had  done,  and  promised 
him,  out  of  the  love  he  had  for  him,  a  thousand  marks  of  silver. 
On  returning  to  Galloway  he  declared  the  death  penalty  against 
any  who  should  acknowledge  he  held  his  lands  of  the  king  of 
Scots,  and  kept  up  an  intermittent  ravaging  of  his  lands.  He 
rightly  judged  that  Henry  would  not  object  to  this  thorn  in  the 
side  of  his  chief  vassal.2 

In  1 181,  while  William  was  in  attendance  on  Henry  in  Nor- 

1"  Rex  Scotiae  et  David  frater  ejus  devenerunt  ibidem  homines  praedicti  regis  de 
omnibus  tenementis  suis  :  et  nominatim  de  Scotia  et  Galveia."  (Ben.  Pet.,  I,  p.  95.) 
The  language  of  the  treaty  is  "de  Scotia  et  de  omnibus  aliis  terris  suis."  Galloway  is 
not  mentioned ;  nor  does  Lothian  appear.  Fergus  had  married  an  illegitimate  daugh- 
ter of  Henry  I.     Hence  Henry  II  spoke  of  Uchtred  as  "  consanguineus  suus." 

3  Hoveden,  Pref.,  I,  p.  xvi,  An.  1 174-6;  Also  Ben.  Pet.,  ibid.;  Bain.,  Cal.  Docts., 
I,  Nos.  154,  192.     Gilbert's  first  payment  was  in    11 79,  "Sol.  lis.  by  the  hands  of 


84  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

mandy  for  the  settlement  of  the  quarrel  about  John  Scot,  a  fresh 
revolt  broke  out  in  Scotland,  under  the  lead  of  Donald  Mac- 
William,  a  pretender  to  the  throne.  Both  kings  returned  to 
England  in  August.  But  it  was  not  till  September,  after  the 
council  at  Nottingham,  that  William  and  his  barons  received  per- 
mission to  return  to  Scotland  and  put  down  the  disturbance  there. 
Three  years  later  he  was  preparing  an  expedition  against  Gilbert 
and  others  who  had  wasted  his  lands,  killed  his  men,  "nee  tamen 
cum  eo  pacem  facere  volebant."1  But  hearing  of  Henry's 
return  from  Normandy,  he  disbanded  his  forces  and  came  as 
quickly  as  possible  to  him,  with  representatives  of  the  Scottish 
clergy  and  laity.  For  with  Henry  came  Matilda,  daughter  of 
Henry,  duke  of  Saxony,  whom  William  sought  in  marriage. 
Since  the  forfeiture  and  exile  of  her  father,  she  had  been  with 
King  Henry  in  England  and  Normandy.  The  king  made  no 
objection  to  the  union,  but  the  refusal  of  the  pope  to  sanction 
the  marriage,  on  the  ground  of  consanguinity,  is  one  of  several 
indications  that  Henry  was  really  unwilling  to  strengthen  his 
vassal  by  such  an  alliance.2 

The  Christmas  feast  of  1194  witnessed  the  presence  of  Wil- 
liam, his  earls  and  barons,  at  the  English  court.  Again,  in  Lent, 
they  were  summoned,  with  the  bishops  and  abbots,  to  consider  in 
council  a  papal  letter  regarding  the  relief  of  Jerusalem.  Here, 
though  many  others  offered  large  sums  for  it,  Henry  restored 
the  fief  of  Huntingdon  to  William  (Earl  Simon  having  recently 
died),  perhaps  as  an  offset  to  his  disappointment  in  not  winning 
Matilda.  William  at  once  subinfeoffed  it  to  his  brother 
David.3 

On  the  death  of  Gilbert  of  Galloway  late  in   1185,  Roland, 

Robert  de  Vallibus,"  of  Cumberland,  "and  he  owes  920I.  9s.  ...  for  having  the 
king's  benevolence."  Ten  years  later,  at  Henry's  death,  he  still  owes  838I.  J2S.  8d., 
and  this  sum  was  never  paid.  Robertson  thinks  there  is  some  unexplained  reason  for 
Hoveden's  reserve  about  Galloway.     (Early  Kings,  I,  p.  381,  note. ) 

1  Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet,  An.  1181,  1184. 

2  Ben.  Pet,  An.  1184;  Itinerary  Hen.  II,  p.  62. 

3  Ben.  Pet,  An.  1185.  Hoveden  places  this  council  in  1 185,  but  the  transfer  of 
Huntingdon  in  1184. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  85 

son  of  the  murdered  Uchtred,  at  once  seized  the  territory  and 
thoroughly  subdued  it.  Gilbert's  son  Duncan  was  still  a  hostage 
at  the  English  court.  Henry  seems  at  first  to  have  passed  over 
Roland's  independent  assertion  of  his  rights,  being  occupied 
with  a  new  marriage  scheme  for  William  the  Lion. 

amageo         jj^   kjng   ancj   David,   with   their  chief  men,  were 
William  ,  .        _      ,.  ,  , 

..    _.  summoned   to    the    English    court    early    in    1186. 

Henry  received  them  with  great  courtesy  and  affa- 
bility in  order  to  secure  their  goodwill  and  further  his  plans. 
After  some  days  of  pleasant  entertainment  he  proposed  that 
William  should  marry  Ermengarde,  daughter  of  Richard,  vis- 
count of  Beaumont.1  After  consulting  his  barons,  William  at 
length  accepted  the  offer.  Henry,  first  taking  an  oath  from  the 
Scottish  barons  that  they  would  serve  him  faithfully,  then  sent 
them  home  again  to  prepare  an  expedition  against  Roland,  and 
to  bring  him  to  the  English  court.  Roland  refused  to  come,  and 
Henry,  therefore,  concentrated  his  forces  on  Carlisle,  sending 
William  and  David  to  bring  in  the  refractory  usurper.  But  he 
still  refused  to  come  till  hostages  were  given  and  a  safe  conduct 
granted.  He  then  went  with  them  and  did  homage  to  Henry 
for  his  lands,  as  the  other  Scottish  barons  had  done,  agreeing  to 
submit  the  conflicting  claims  of  Duncan  to  the  decision  of  the 
Curia  Regis.  He  also  gave  hostages,  and  William  and  his  barons 
swore  they  would  adhere  to  the  English  king  if  Roland  proved 
disloyal,  while  the  bishop  of  Glasgow  solemnly  promised  on  the 
sacred  relics  that  he  would  excommunicate  him  if  unfaithful. 
Roland  seems  to  have  found  a  refuge  at  the  Scottish  court,  after 
the  murder  of  his  father,  where  he  married  one  of  William's 
daughters.  Duncan's  claims  were  apparently  never  pressed,  and 
after  the  death  of  Henry  they  were  given  up  in  exchange  for 
the  earldom  of  Carrick.  Early  in  September  (1186)  William's 
marriage  was  celebrated  at  Woodstock,  the  king  giving  up  his 
palace  to  the  royal  pair.  The  castle  of  the  Maidens  (Edin- 
burgh) was  restored  to  William  as  a  part  of  Ermengarde's  mar- 
riage dower.     After   four  days  the  bride  was  accompanied  to 

1  Richard's  father  married  Constance,  a  daughter  of  Henry  I. 


86  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Scotland  by  Bishop  Jocelyn  and  the  earls  and  barons,  William 

going  with  Henry  to  Marlborough.1 

Outwardly,  William  seems  now  to  have  almost  regained  the 

position  he  occupied  before  his  capture  and  the  treaty  of  Falaise. 

He  has  fiefs  certainly  in  Northumberland  and  Hunt- 

His  Position       ingdon.     The   castle  of  Edinburgh   is  again   garri- 
cit  Hciirv's 

soned  by  Scots.     Jedburgh  and  Stirling  apparently 

were  never  demanded  by  Henry.  Only  Roxburgh 
and  Berwick  remain  beyond  his  reach,  and  to  these  he  turns  with 
longing  eyes.  There  is  no  essential  conflict  between  the  narra- 
tives of  Hoveden  and  Benedict  of  his  efforts  to  regain  them. 
According  to  the  account  of  the  former,  Henry  sent  the  bishop 
of  Durham  and  others  to  collect  the  Saladin  tithe  from  the  king- 
dom of  Scotland.  William  met  them  on  the  border  and  refused 
them  entrance  on  such  a  mission,  but  offered  to  give  instead  to 
his  liege  lord  5,000  marks  of  silver,  on  condition  that  the  remain- 
ing castles  should  be  restored  to  him.  The  bishop  was  not 
empowered  to  complete  such  a  transaction,  and  returned  empty- 
handed  to  the  king,  who  refused  to  accept  the  offer. 

Benedict  says  that  William  had  previously  offered  4,000 
marks  for  the  castles,  and  that  Henry  had  agreed  to  the 
exchange,  on  condition  that  he  should  receive  a  tenth  from 
William's  dominions.  The  latter  "desiring  to  satisfy  the  king's 
petitions,"  conceded  the  tenth  which  he  sought,  //  he  could  per- 
suade his  men  to  agree  to  it.  But  when  the  messengers  came  to 
collect  it,  they  were  met  by  the  nobles  and  clergy  and  a  large 
body  of  men,  who  swore  they  would  never  pay  the  tithe,  even 
though  both  kings  demanded  it.  Nor  was  it  paid.  It  was  the 
last  time  that  Henry  II  would  attempt  to  interfere  in  the 
kingdom  of  Scotland,  for  he  was  now  fighting  for  his  own  life 
and  dominions.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1189,  he  was  compelled  to 
yield.  He  placed  himself  wholly  under  the  control  and  at  the 
will  of  Philip,  king  of  France,  renewed  his  homage  to  him  as 
overlord,  and  promised  the  payment  of  20,000  marks.  He  also 
delivered  up  certain  castles  as   security,  and   his  barons   swore 

•Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  387,  390,  note;  Ben.  Pet.,  Hoveden,  An.  1186. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  87 

that  if  he  proved  faithless,  they  would  hold  with  Philip  and 
Earl  Richard  against  him.  Humiliated,  and  broken-hearted 
over  the  treachery  of  his  son,  John,  he  died  at  Chinon,  after  an 
eventful  reign  of  more  than  thirty-four  years.1 

Though  the  northern  kingdom  seemed  to  have  almost 
recovered  from  the  disaster  of  11 74,  that  event  had  really 
brought  great  changes.  The  king  might  recover  the  fiefs  he 
had  lost,  but  he  could  not  win  back  the  independence  of  the 
kingdom,  with  which  his  freedom  had  been  so  dearly  bought. 
For  fifteen  years  king,  clergy,  and  nobles  had  been  subject  to 
the  summons  of  the  king  of  England.  Their  attendance  at  the 
court  of  Henry  became  a  common  occurrence.  William's  vas- 
sals were  the  vassals  of  his  English  overlord.  Nor  could  he 
wage  war  against  them  without  the  consent  of  that  overlord. 
These  are  new  phenomena,  which  do  not  reappear  till  Edward  I 
again  assumes  the  overlordship  of  Scotland.  As  they  mark  the 
dependent  kingdom,  their  absence  indicates  that  the  homage  of 
Scottish  kings  was  for  their  English  fiefs,  and  not  for  the 
kingdom  at  large. 

The  accession  of  Henry's  second  son,  Richard,  brought  a 
welcome  change  to  Scotland.     David,  earl  of  Huntingdon,  who 

had  already  been  his  devoted  supporter,  partici- 
Scotland  Inde-  ...        '  .       ...  *•  •         u 

pated  in  the  splendid  coronation  ceremonies,  by 
pendent  again     r  r  . 

carrying  one  of  the  three  golden  swords  kept  in 

the  king's  treasury.  The  absence  of  the  king  of  Scotland  with 
his  barons  and  clergy  was  prophetic  of  the  restoration  of  the 
ancient  liberties  of  the  northern  kingdom.  Richard  was  no 
sooner  crowned  than  he  received  homage  and  fealty  from  his 
barons,  and  proceeded  to  put  up  for  sale  "everything  he  had, 
castles,  towns  and  estates."  Sending  "  mandatis  urgentibus  "  for 
William,  who  was  "invetera  laborantem  tristitia  pro  castellis," 
he  ordered  Geoffrey,  archbishop-elect  of  York,  and  the  barons 
and  sheriff  of  Yorkshire  to  meet  William  at  the  Tweed,'  and 

'Ben.  Pet.,  Hoveden,  An.  1 188-9. 
»W.  Newburgh,  An.  1189  ;  Ben.  Pet,  II  p.  97. 

This,  again,  indicates  the  boundary  line  between  the  two  kingdoms.  Sir  Francis 
Palgrave  says  the  king  of  Scots  "  held  Tyndale  as  a  regality,  using  therein  all  the 


88  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

to  conduct  him  with  due  honor  to  Canterbury.  There  the  king 
of  Scots  did  homage  to  Richard  "  pro  dignitatibus  suis  habendis 
in  Anglia,  sicut  Malcolmus  frater  ejus  habuit."  Richard  then 
restored  to  William  the  castles  of  Roxburgh  and  Berwick,  and 
released  him  and  his  heirs  "  ab  ipso  et  regibus  Angliae  in  per- 
petuum  de  omnia  ligantia  et  subjectione  de  regno  Scotiae."  And 
for  this  "  quieta  clamantia  fidelitatis  et  ligantiae  de  regno 
Scotiae,"  confirmed  by  a  charter  and  the  restoration  of  his 
castles,    William    gave     10,000    marks    sterling.1     Benedict    of 

rights  of  a  sovereign  —  rights  which  without  doubt  he  had  equally  exercised  when  the 
three  lands  of  Cumbria,  Northumbria  and  Westmere  were  placed  beneath  his  authority. 
This  fact  is  evidenced  by  the  highly  curious  roll  of  his  justices  itinerant."  (Cf.  Bain, 
Cal.  Docts.,  II,  No.  168.)  "It  will  appear  from  this  roll  that  the  king  of  Scots  [Alex- 
ander III]  exercised  the  powers  of  jurisdiction  within  this  district  exactly  in  the  same 
manner  as  he  did  in  Lothian,  equally  a  portion  of  the  Northumbrian  kingdom,  and 
held  under  the  same  allegiance.  And  had  the  northern  counties  continued  in  the 
possession  of  the  Scottish  crown,  they  would,  like  the  lands  beyond  the  Tweed,  have 
had  the  good  or  ill  fortune  of  being  considered  as  integral  portions  of  the  Scottish 
kingdom."  (Docts.  Scot.,  I,  p.  vii.)  But  this  roll  does  not  mention  Lothian.  It 
applies  only  to  Tynedale,  and  hence  affords  no  evidence  that  Lothian  was  "equally 
a  portion  of  the  Northumbrian  kingdom,  and  held  under  the  same  allegiance." 
Tynedale  was  held  on  the  most  generous  and  easy  terms  known  to  the  feudal  system. 
Yet  it  regularly  appears  in  the  records  of  the  English  Exchequer  as  a  fief  held  by  the 
Scottish  crown.  Had  Lothian  been  held  "under  the  same  allegiance,"  or  been  aught 
but  an  "integral  portion  of  the  Scottish  kingdom,"  as  it  was  "considered"  to  be,  it 
must  inevitably  have  appeared  also.  When  Henry  III  ordained  "  the  sheriff  of 
Northumberland  ....  and  the  knights  of  the  shire  ....  to  proceed  to  the 
marches  between  England  and  Scotland "  to  settle  a  dispute  about  them,  he 
certainly  did  not  consider  Lothian  a  part  of  Northumberland.  Nor  did  Hugh  de 
Bolebec,  who  informed  the  king  later  that "  he,  with  the  knights  of  Northumberland, 
met  in  person  at  '  Revedeneburne  '  [on  the  Tweed]  David  de  Lindesay,  Justiciar  of 
Lothian  (Laoudie),  Patric,  Earl  of  Dunbar,  and  many  other  knights  sent  by  the  K.  of 
Scotland."     The  two  regions  and  their  representatives  are  distinctly  opposed. 

'Mr.  Bain,  following  Ridpath  (Border  Hist.,  p.  105,  note),  doubts  this  payment. 
But  the  evidence  seems  clear.  In  11 93-4  there  is  account  from  Westmoreland  "  for 
the  carriage  of  the  monies  which  were  sent  by  the  K.  of  Scotland,  100s."  In  1199, 
from  Yorkshire,  "  for  the  cost  of  carrying  the  treasure  to  London,  which  the  K.  of 
Scotland  gave  (dedit)  to  K.  Richard,  30s."  That  these  payments  were  not  part  of 
the  aid  contributed  to  Richard's  ransom  is  evident  from  the  next  entry,  under  North- 
umberland, same  year,  "  For  2000  marks  carried  from  Ravendene  to  York,  which  the 
K.  of  Scotland  sent  to  Richard,  40s."  (Bain  I,  Nos.  221,  283-4.)  Fordun  (Bk.  VIII) 
says  :  "  Hoc  anno  rex  magnum  tenuit  consilium,  ubi  petito  ab  optimatibus  auxilio, 
promiserunt  se  daturos  10,000  marcas ;  praeter  burgenses  regni  qui  6000  marcarum 
promiserunt."     (Cf.  Annals,  §  XXI.) 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  89 

Peterborough  says,  "homagium  pro  dignitatibus  suis  habendis 
in  Anglia,  sicut  reges  Scottorum  praedecessores  sui  habere  sole- 
bant  temporibus  regum  Angliae."  The  release  was  "  de  omni 
ligantia  et  subjectione  de  regno  Scotiae."  Even  the  St.  Albans 
chroniclers  at  last  fall  into  line,  and  state  that  the  homage  was 
"  de  jure  suo  in  Anglia,"  with  release  from  fealty  "  de  regno 
Scotiae."  It  seems  impossible  to  honestly  maintain  that  the 
king  of  Scots  was  not  released  from  all  homage  and  allegiance 
for  his  kingdom,  or  that  he  did  homage  to  Richard  for  anything 
beyond  his  fiefs  in  England.     The  charter  itself  is  as  follows  : 

Richard  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  England,  etc.  Know  that 
we  have  restored  to  our  dearest  cousin  William,  by  the  same  grace  King 
of  Scotland,  his  castles  of  Rokeborc  and  Beraich,  as  his  own  by  heredi- 
tary right,  to  be  by  him  and  his  heirs  possessed  forever.  Moreover,  we 
have  quitted  {quietavimus)  to  him  all  the  pactions  which  our  good 
father  Henry  King  of  England  by  new  charters  and  by  his  capture 
extorted.  On  such  condition,  that  is  to  say,  that  he  do  to  us  wholly 
and  fully  whatsoever  Malcolm  King  of  Scotland,  his  brother,  did  of 
right  to  our  ancestors  and  of  right  ought  to  do.  And  we  do  to  him  what- 
ever our  ancestors  of  right  did  to  the  saidMalcom  and  ought  to  do,  to-wit, 
in  safe  conduct  in  coming  to  the  court  and  in  staying  in  the  court  and 
in  returning  from  the  court,  and  in  procurations  and  in  all  liberties  and 
dignities  and  honors  due  to  him  of  right,  according  as  it  shall  be  found 
by  four  of  our  nobles  chosen  by  King  William  himself,  and  by  four  of 
his  nobles  chosen  by  us.  But  if  any  one  of  our  men  shall  have  unjustly 
encroached  on  the  marches  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  after  the  said 
King  William  was  taken  prisoner  by  our  father,  we  will  that  they  be 
fully  restored  and  brought  back  to  the  same  state  in  which  they  were 
before  his  capture.  Moreover,  concerning  his  lands  which  he  may 
have  (haberet)  in  England,  whether  in  demesne  or  in  fee  (dominicis  seu 
feodts),  to-wit,  in  the  county  of  Huntedun  and  in  all  others,  let  him 
and  his  heirs  possess  them  forever  in  the  same  freedom  and  with  such 
custom  as  the  aforesaid  King  Malcolm  possessed  or  ought  to  have 
possessed  them  ;  unless  the  aforesaid  King  Malcolm  or  his  heirs  shall 
afterwards  have  enfeoffed  any  portion  thereof.  Provided  that  if  any 
lands  shall  have  been  so  enfeoffed  afterwards,  the  services  of  those  fiefs 
belong  to  him  and  his  heirs.  And  the  land  which  our  father  gave  to 
the   aforesaid   King   William,  we  will  that  he  and  his  heirs  perpetually 


90  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

possess  in  the  same  freedom  in  which  he  gave  it  to  him.  Also  we  have 
restored  to  him  the  fealties  of  his  vassals  which  our  father  had 
received,  and  all  the  charters  which  our  father  had  from  him  by  means 
of  his  capture.  And  if  perchance  any  shall  have  been  retained  through 
forgetfulness,  or  shall  be  found,  we  command  that  these  be  utterly 
without  force.  But  the  oftmentioned  William  has  become  our  liege 
man  for  all  the  lands  for  which  his  ancestors  were  the  liege  men  of  our 
ancestors,  and  has  sworn  fealty  to  us  and  our  heirs.  And  that  this 
may  be  settled  and  fixed  forever,  we  have  confirmed  it  by  this  present 
charter  and  our  seal.1     (Dec.  5  11 89.) 

A  question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  wisdom  of  Richard's 
policy.     But  if  his  position  be  considered,  his  action  seems  jus- 
tified.    His  heart  was  wrapped  up  in  the  crusade. 
Wisdom  of  TT  ,  _,rr         r  .  ■ 

Richard's  Policy         must  have   money.     Moreover,  it  would  have 

been  poor  policy  to  leave  a  hostile  vassal  on  his 
northern  borders  during  his  absence  —  a  vassal  irritated  by  the 
fate  which  had  robbed  his  kingdom  of  its  independence,  and 
only  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  regain  it.  Nor  was  it  in 
accord  with  the  policy  of  the  Conqueror  and  other  English  kings, 
who  preferred  rather  to  protect  their  northern  borders  by  friendly 
alliances  than  to  extend  their  territory  and  jurisdiction  beyond 
the  Tweed. 

The  peace  which  continued  between  the  two  kingdoms  dur- 
ing Richard's  reign  is  the  best  justification  of  his  policy. 

A  comparison  of  the  treaties  made  by  Henry  and  Richard 
with  William  the  Lion  shows  that  Henry  extorted  some  service 
Th  T  t  of  or  r'lS^  from  William  that  Malcolm  IV  had  not 
Falaise  and  the  yielded,  and  that  Richard  restored  the  king  of 
Charter  of  Scots  to  the  footing  he  occupied  before  his  capture 

Richard  at  Alnwick.     What  Henry  gained  by  the  treaty  of 

Compared  Falaise    was    a    distinct     acknowledgment    of     his 

overlordship  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  with  the  consequent 
homage  and  service  not  only  of  the  king,  who  was  also  a  land- 
holder in   England,  but  of  all  his  barons  and  clergy.     This  is 

1  Foedera,  1,  p.  64  ;  Hoveden,  Ben.  Pet.,  An.  1189;  Nat.  MSS.  Scot,  I,  No. 
XLVI. 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  9 1 

the  important  feature  in  this  treaty  —  the  new  right  which  the 
king  of  England  acquired.  If  this  be  denied  on  the  ground 
that  Henry  possessed  this  right  previously,  the  treaty  of  Falaise 
is  without  significance.  If  it  be  affirmed  that  it  simply  restates 
and  makes  provision  for  the  enforcement  of  an  old  right,  the 
argument  only  proves  that  the  Scottish  kings  had  hitherto  not 
yielded  to  the  English  claims  and  had  maintained  the  independ- 
ence of  their  kingdom.  But  however  widely  feudal  claims 
and  just  feudal  rights  often  differed,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Henry  made  any  such  claims,  or  regarded  William  as  a  rebel- 
lious vassal,  except  in  relation  to  his  English  fiefs  —  of  which  he 
was  temporarily  deprived.  He  had  joined  as  a  chief  conspirator 
in  a  league  against  the  lord  of  those  fiefs,  and  in  doing  homage 
for  his  kingdom  he  suffered  the  severest  penalty  which  Henry 
could  inflict.  From  this  position  of  irritating  and  hitherto 
unknown  dependence  Richard  fully  released  his  cousin,  who 
became  his  liege  man  for  his  lands  in  England,  just  as  Malcolm 
had  been  the  man  of  Richard's  father  — "  eo  modo  quo  avus  suus 
[David]  fuerat  homo  veteris  regis  Henrici."  x  As  the  depend- 
ent kingdom  was  clearly  marked  by  the  creation  of  a  vassal 
relation  between  the  Scottish  nobles  and  the  English  king,  so 
a  renewal  of  independence  was  marked  by  restoration  of  the 
allegiance  of  William's  vassals  to  himself.  Henry  had  nothing 
to  gain  but  homage  and  service  for  the  kingdom  of  Scotland, 
and  his  son  could  give  nothing  else  back.  Any  other  conces- 
sion would  have  had  but  a  paltry  value  in  William's  eyes.  Even 
his  claims  to  the  northern  counties  are  allowed  to  drop  out  of 
sight  in  the  presence  of  this  greater  desire.  These  events, 
therefore,  indicate  that  the  true  kingdom  of  the  Scots  main- 
tained its  independence  till  the  treaty  of  Falaise — an 
independence  which  was  restored  by  the  charter  of  Richard. 

In  1 190  William's  brother  David  married  Matilda,  a  sister 
of  Ranulph,  earl  of  Chester,  and  Richard  confirmed  to  him  the 
liberties  of  the  honor  of  Huntingdon  as  his  grandfather  David 
had  enjoyed  them.      There  is   some  evidence  that  soon  after 

1  Hoveden,  An.  1157. 


92  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

David  went  to  the  Holy  Land  under  the  banners  of  Richard. 
He,  or  his  brother  the  king,  held  lands  also  in  Northumber- 
land, Warwick,  Leicester,  and  Cambridge.  But 
Efforts  to  Re-  William,  having  regained  the  independence  of  his 
gain  the  kingdom,  was  now  eagerly  urging  his  claims  in  the 

_      „  north  of   England.     He  had  remained  loyal  to  the 

Counties  &  J 

king  in  his  absence  and  captivity.  He  had  con- 
tributed 2000  marks  toward  his  ransom.1  Earl  David  had  par- 
ticipated in  the  siege  of  Nottingham  —  which  John's  partisans 
refused  to  give  up  —  and  also  in  the  council  which  followed  its 
surrender.  Here  the  sheriffdoms  of  Yorkshire  and  Lincoln, 
with  the  castles  of  York  and  Scarborough,  had  been  put  up  for 
sale.  A  second  coronation  was  to  occur  at  Easter,  and  William 
thought  it  a  favorable  time  to  present  his  claims.  The  kings 
met  at  Clipston,  near  the  Sherwood  forests.  William  asked  to 
have  the  provisions  for  his  entertainment  in  coming  to  the  Eng- 
lish court  fufilled,  and  also  demanded  that  Northumberland, 
Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  and  the  honor  of  Lancaster  should 
be  restored  to  him  "dejure  praedecessorum  suorum."  Richard 
promised  to  consult  his  barons  in  a  council  at  Northampton. 
They  advised  him  that  he  ought  not  to  make  these  concessions, 
as  the  princes  of  France,  who  were  nearly  all  hostile  to  him, 
would  attribute  it  to  fear  rather  than  love.  As  an  offset  to  this, 
however,  he  confirmed  by  a  special  charter  the  dignities  and 
honors  promised  to  the  king  of  Scotland.2       Hoveden,  who  gives 

'Chron.  Melrose,  and  Hailes' Annals,  I,  p.  148;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  Nos.  199,  202, 
205,  214,  224.  This  sum  may  have  been  the  feudal  aid  for  ransoming  the  lord  of  his 
fiefs,  though  from  the  later  history  it  appears  more  like  a  gift  to  gain  Richard's  good 
will  in  regard  to  the  northern  counties.  Earl  David  was  freed  by  the  king  of  the 
scutage  for  his  ransom.  (Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  221,  237  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  397  ; 
Hoveden,  An.  1 194.) 

3  Letter  regarding  the  fee  given  to  the  king  of  Scotland  in  his  journey,  and  for 
the  liberations  to  him  to  be  doubled  and  allocated  during  his  stay  in  the  K.'s  court : 

Richard  K.  of  England  has  given  and  confirmed  to  William  K.  of  Scotland 
his  friend  and  cousin  and  liegeman,  and  his  heirs  forever,  all  the  liberties  and  rights 
which  his  ancestors  were  wont  to  have  coming  to  the  English  court,  remaining  there, 
and  returning  therefrom  ;  namely,  each  day  after  crossing  the  marches  of  England  on 
the  K.'s  mandate,  100s.  sterling,  and  as  much  on  his  return  until  he  reaches  his  own 
land;  and  on  each  day  during  his  stay  at  court  30s.  sterling;  and    12    of   the   K.'s 


TREATY  OF  FALAISE  AND  CHARTER  OF  RELEASE  93 

the  substance  of  this  charter  in  his  own  language,  says  that 
whenever  the  king  of  Scots  came  to  court  on  the  summons  of 
the  king  of  England,  he  was  to  be  received  "ad  aquam  de 
Tuede  "  by  the  bishop  of  Durham  and  the  sheriff  of  Northum- 
berland, and  brought  in  safety  to  the  Tees,  and  so  on  to  the 
south.  In  returning  also,  he  was  to  be  conducted  by  the 
respective  bishops  and  sheriffs  "  donee  pervenerit  ad  aquam  de 
Tuede."  As  the  Tees  marked  the  north  boundary  of  York,  so 
the  Tweed  set  the  limit  to  Northumberland  and  the  northern 
extent  of  the  kingdom  of  England. 

In  token  of  friendship,  and  as  the  representative  of  his 
English  fiefs,  William  participated  in  Richard's  second  coro- 
nation at  Winchester,  carrying,  as  Earl  David  had  formerly  done, 
one  of  the  swords  of  state.  Perhaps  he  still  hoped  to  win  a 
larger  part  of  his  claims,  for  when  Hugh,  bishop  of  Durham, 
gave  up  the  county  of  Northumberland,  William  at  once  offered 
15,000  marks  for  it  and  its  appurtenances.  The  offer  was  a 
tempting  one  to  Richard,  but  he  would  not  include  the  castles 
and  without  the  political  advantages  they  would  afford  William 
cared  little  for  the  pecuniary  value  of  the  fief.  A  few  days  later 
another  attempt  was  made,  but,  says  Hoveden,  "  It  was  not  a 

domain  wastels  (dominis  guastellis) ;  and  a  like  number  of  simnells  of  same  ;  and 
12  sesterces  of  wine,  viz.,  4  of  the  K.'s  domain  wine,  with  which  he  is  served,  and 
8  ....  ;  and  2  stones  of  wax,  or  4  candles ;  and  40  of  the  domain  candles,  with 
which  the  K.  of  England  is  served  ;  and  80  candles  of  the  kind  served  to  the  K.'s 
house  ;  and  2  pounds  of  pepper  ;  and  4  pounds  of  cinnamon  (cimini) ;  and  besides, 
the  attendance  which  his  ancestors  had  coming  "to  and  returning  from  the  court  of 
England,  viz.,  that  the  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  the  sheriff  and  barons  of  Northumber- 
land, shall  receive  him  on  the  marches  and  conduct  him  to  the  Tees ;  and  there  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  and  the  sheriff  and  barons  of  that  shire  shall  receive  and  conduct 
him  to  the  bishopric  of  Lincoln  ;  where  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  and  sheriffs  and 
barons  of  the  county  shall  receive  and  conduct  him  through  their  bailliaries ;  and  in 
like  manner  the  bishops  and  sheriffs  of  the  provinces  through  which  he  shall  pass  to 
Court.  Wherefore  the  K.  wills  and  firmly  commands  that  K.  William  and  his 
heirs  shall  have  the  aforesaids  forever,  both  in  expenses  and  conducts,  and  in  fugi- 
tives who  shall  wish  to  defend  themselves  from  felony  at  the  English  court,  in  peace ; 
the  bishops,  sheriffs,  and  barons  doing  the  said  services,  and  keeping  all  other  rights 
and  liberties,  and  each  sheriff  finding  the  foresaid  expenses  in  his  bailliary. 

Witnesses. — April  17,  1194. 

Bain,  I,  No.  226  ;  Foedera,  I,  p.  87. 


94  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

part  of  the  king's  plan  to  deliver  any  castles  to  him ;  neverthe- 
less he  gave  him  hope  of  having  them  in  future,  after  his  return 
from  Normandy."  The  next  day  William  returned  disappointed 
to  Scotland,  and  the  kings  never  met  again.1 

The  following  year  William  fell  ill  at  Clackmannan,  and 
assembled  his  barons  to  consider  the  question  of  the  succession. 
He  wished  to  settle  it  on  Otho,  son  of  Henry,  duke  of  Saxony, 
and  nephew  of  Richard,  on  condition  that  Otho  should  marry 
his  eldest  daughter,  Margaret.  A  strong  party,  headed  by  Earl 
Patrick  of  Dunbar,  opposed  this,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not 
the  custom  that  a  woman  should  possess  the  kingdom,  so  long 
as  a  nephew  or  brother  of  her  race  survived  who  might  possess 
it.  William's  speedy  recovery  did  not  lead  to  a  change  of  mind, 
and  the  next  year  a  conference  on  the  subject  was  held  at  York 
with  Hubert,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  justiciar  of  England, 
and  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See.  Margaret  was  to  have  Lothian 
as  her  dowry,  while  all  Northumberland  and  the  county  of  Car- 
lisle were  to  be  given  to  the  royal  pair  by  Richard.  Lothian, 
with  its  castles,  was  to  be  held  by  Richard,  Northumberland  and 
Carlisle,  with  their  castles,  by  William.  Had  Lothian  been  an 
English  fief,  it  would  have  been  little  to  Richard's  satisfaction 
to  gain  the  custody  of  his  own  earldom  in  exchange  for  all 
Northumberland  and  the  county  of  Carlisle.  Lothian  evidently 
was  not  a  part  of  Northumberland  at  this  time,  nor  did  it  sustain 
any  feudal  relation  to  England.  Hopes  of  an  heir  led  William 
to  delay  the  execution  of  this  plan,  and  in  1 190  a  son  was  born, 
Alexander  II,  to  whom,  at  the  age  of  three  years,  the  barons  of 
the  realm  swore  fealty.  Richard  had  died  in  1199,  and  the 
clouds  of  doubt  and  strife  which  hung  over  England  and  Nor- 
mandy on  the  accession  of  John  began  to  darken  the  horizon  of 
Scotland's  future.2 

IHoveden,  An.  1194. 

■Hoveden,  An.  1195 ;  Hailes'  Annals,  I,  p.  149;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  399. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    GREAT    CHARTER. 

To  interpret  the  events  of  this  period  aright,  it  is  essential 

to  recall  the  amalgamating  forces  which  were  drawing  England 

and  Scotland  into  closer  relations.  The  marriage 
Anglo-Scotch  ° 

Relations  °^  Malcolm  and  Margaret  was  followed  by  that  of 

Henry  and  "  good  Queen  Maud."  Her  brother 
David,  a  welcome  guest  at  Henry's  court,  married  the  widow  of 
a  rich,  powerful  English  earl,  and  gathered  about  him  that  band 
of  Norman  nobility  whose  descendants  were  to  claim  the 
Scottish  crown.  It  was  part  of  a  common  policy  now  to  push 
out  the  bounds  of  territory  and  dominion  by  the  peaceful 
methods  of  marriage  and  inheritance,  rather  than  by  the  con- 
quests of  war.  The  kingdom  of  England  was  dotted  over  with 
Scottish  holdings.  The  Scottish  descendants  of  Cospatric  are 
now  found  as  far  south  as  Wiltshire.  Alexander  II  holds  lands 
in  ten  counties  of  England.  Of  the  illegitimate  daughters  of 
William  the  Lion,  Isabella  married  Robert  de  Brus,  and  later 
Robert  de  Ros ;  Ada  married  Earl  Patrick  of  Dunbar ;  Margaret 
was  married  to  Eustace  de  Vesci,  and  Aufrida  to  William  de  Say. 
Of  his  three  daughters  by  Ermengarde,  Margaret  was  married 
to  Hubert  de  Burgh,  the  actual  ruler  of  England  during  the 
minority  of  Henry  III,  Isabella  to  Roger  Bigod,  earl  of  Norfolk, 
and  the  beautiful  Marjory  —  who  was  sought  by  Henry  himself — 
was  eventually  wedded  to  Gilbert,  the  mareschal,  earl  of  Pem- 
broke. William's  brother,  David,  lived  to  old  age,  leaving 
several  children.  His  only  surviving  son,  John  "  the  Scot," 
inherited  the  earldoms  of  Chester  and  Lincoln  through  his 
mother,  and  the  Huntingdon  lands  through  his  father.  Of  the 
daughters,  Dervorguil  gave  the  family  of  Balliol  its  claim  to  the 
Scottish  crown,  Ada  married  Henry  de  Hastings,  and  Isabella, 

95 


96  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

the  wife  of  Robert  Bruce,  became  the  mother  of  a  noble  line  of 
kings.  These  are  only  a  few  illustrations  of  the  way  in  which 
the  two  kingdoms  were  knit  together  by  the  bonds  of  family  and 
feudal  ties.1  Hence,  when  the  child-king  of  Scotland  marries 
the  little  daughter  of  Henry  III,  it  is  not  strange  to  find  the 
father  taking  an  active  part  in  the  regency,  not  as  feudal  lord  of 
Scotland,  but  on  the  ground  of  consanguinity,  while  his  letters 
under  the  royal  seal  disclaim  any  purpose  to  undermine  the 
liberties  or  independence  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.  It  was 
a  favorite  method  of  the  times  for  a  strong  lord  to  grant  a  fief 
to  a  weaker  one,  in  the  hope  of  eventually  finding  a  pretext  for 
establishing  a  claim  it  was  never  intended  to  concede.  And 
undoubtedly  a  part  of  the  English  claims  on  Scotland  arose  in 
this  way.  They  came  more  largely,  however,  through  the  ming- 
ling of  family  and  national  relations  than  through  a  set  purpose 
to  unjustly  extend  the  English  power  on  the  basis  of  the  feudal 
relation. 

A  certain  class  of  historians  takes  special  pleasure  in  putting 
Scotland  and  Wales  in  the  same  category,  as  dependencies  of 
England.  But  such  a  theory  is  quite  untenable.  The  true  rela- 
tion between  the  Scottish  and  English  kings  was  that  which 
existed  between  the  English  kings  and  their  French  overlords. 
There  was,  however,  this  marked  difference.  A  greater  unity 
territorially,  ethnically,  and  feudally  existed  at  this  period 
between  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms  of  Britain  than 
between  England  and  France  —  a  unity  which  resulted  in  the 
severance  of  England  from  her  continental  possessions,  and 
joined  her  with  the  independent  kingdom  of  Scotland.  The 
indepe?idetice  of  the  kingdom  was  steadily  guarded  by  the  men  of 
Scotland  as  a  precious  treasure.  It  was  acknowledged  by  the 
kings  of  England,  and,  except  during  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  was 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  5,  10,  12,  686.  On  genealogy  cf.  Hailes'  Annals, 
and  Early  Kings.  Duncan,  Earl  of  Fife,  pays  500  marks  for  the  custody  of  Roger  de 
Merlay's  land  and  his  son,  in  Northumberland,  "  and  that  the  son  may  marry  the  said 
earl's  daughter."  For  a  fine  of  ^200  Alexander  II  has  the  ward  and  marriage  of 
the  heirs  of  David  de  Lindesi,  with  custody  of  their  lands  in  eleven  counties  of  Eng- 
land.    (Bain,  I,  Nos.  191,  822-3.) 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  97 

never  lost  till  the  direct  line  of  Scottish  kings  became  extinct, 
and  their  descendants,  through  the  related  Anglo-Norman  stock, 
submitted  their  claims  to  the  great  Edward.  Even  then  the 
true  Scot  spirit  revealed  itself.  "According  as  they  [the  com- 
petitors for  the  crown  of  Scotland]  supported  or  withstood  the 
rights  of  their  own  prince  [Edward  of  England]  over  the  king- 
dom which  they  claimed,"  says  Mr.  Freeman,  "some  of  them 
have  won  the  name  of  Scottish  traitors  and  others  the  name  of 
Scottish  patriots."  He  asserts  that  from  924-1328  "the  vassal- 
age of  Scotland  was  an  essential  part  of  the  public  law  of  the 
isle  of  Britain;"  and  that  "nothing  is  clearer  than  that  this 
homage  (1072)  was  paid,  not  only  for  Cumberland  or  Lothian, 
but  for  the  true  kingdom  of  the  Celtic  Picts  and  Scots."  He 
then  constructs  an  ingenious  theory  according  to  which  this 
policy  was  carried  out.  The  king  of  Scots  held  of  the  English 
king  by  three  forms  of  tenure.  He  held  his  true  kingdom  north 
of  the  Forth  and  Clyde  under  a  merely  external  supremacy  ; 
Scottish  Cumbria  as  a  territorial  fief,  and  Lothian  as  an  English 
earldom.  The  first  objection  to  this  view  is  that  it  presupposes 
a  continuous  feudal  system  in  England  from  924  to  1328  —  a  view 
for  which  few  advocates,  if  any,  can  be  found.  It  would  cer- 
tainly be  unjust  to  establish  a  true  feudal  claim  on  a  non-feudal 
precedent.  A  second  objection  is  that  the  facts  regarding  Scot- 
tish Cumbria  and  Lothian  do  not  warrant  such  a  theory.  Nor, 
third,  do  they  warrant  a  merely  external  supremacy  over  the 
kingdom  north  of  the  Forth  and  Clyde.  For  Richard  released 
William  the  Lion  from  all  homage  and  allegiance  for  the  king- 
dom of  Scotland.  Such  a  supremacy,  which  brought  with  it 
absolutely  no  rights  or  privileges,  no  tribute  or  service,  no 
power  of  interference  unless  gained  in  battle  by  the  fate  of  arms, 
is  at  best  an  exceedingly  hazy  thing.  In  reality,  it  did  not  exist. 
Any  such  appearance  is  easily  explicable  through  the  peculiar 
feudal  and  family  ties  which  were  formed.  The  fact  of  such 
supremacy  is  disproved  by  the  best  sources.  The  only  basis  for 
such  a  conception  lies  in  the  mythical  "commendation"  of  924, 
— truly  a  slender  foundation  on  which  to  rear  the  massive  feudal 


98  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

structure  of  later  ages.  From  David  to  Alexander  III  Scottish 
kings  were,  indeed,  vassals  of  an  English  overlord.  But  the 
relation  was  a  purely  personal  one,  and  homage  was  rendered 
only  for  English  fiefs.  It  never  embraced  the  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land, except  when  extorted  as  the  ransom  of  a  captive  king.1 

The  accession  of  John  brought  little  joy  to  either  England 
or  Scotland.  He  had  many  attractive  personal  graces,  and  con- 
siderable gifts  as  a  politician,  diplomat,  and  war- 
rior. But  morally  he  was  rotten  to  the  core.  "In 
his  inner  soul  John  was  the  worst  outcome  of  the  Angevins. 
He  united  into  one  mass  of  wickedness  their  insolence,  their 
selfishness,  their  unbridled  lust,  their  cruelty  and  tyranny,  their 
shamelessness,  their  superstition,  their  cynical  indifference  to 
honor  or  truth."2  On  the  death  of  Richard,  John  at  once  sent 
his  representatives  to  England  to  receive  oaths  of  fealty  from 
his  subjects.  In  a  meeting  at  Northampton  they  pledged  their 
word  to  David,  the  brother  of  the  king  of  Scots,  and  many  others 
of  the  barons  whose  support  was  doubtful,  that  John  would  give 
to  each  of  them  full  justice  if  they  would  preserve  their  fealty  to 
him.  King  William  sent  messengers  from  the  north,  demand- 
ing a  restoration  of  his  patrimony.  But  the  English  officials 
would  not  permit  them  to  cross  over  to  Normandy,  sending  Earl 
David  instead  to  William,  to  urge  him  patiently  to  wait  for 
John's  arrival  in  England.  John  also  sent  a  message  to  William 
by  Eustace  de  Vesci,  promising  him  full  satisfaction  of  his 
demands  if  he  would  meanwhile  keep  the  peace.  In  May,  1199, 
the  king  landed  in  England  and  was  crowned  at  Westminster. 
Roger,  bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  was  present  at  the  coronation, 
apparently  to  look  out  for  the  interests  of  the  Scottish  king,  but 
there  is  no  mention  of  Earl  David.  Soon  after,  John  gave  a 
hearing  to  William's  messengers,  but  evaded  giving  an  answer 
to  their  demands  for  the  northern  counties,  and  again  sought  a 
meeting  with  William,  hoping  he  would  come  to  him  at  Notting- 
ham.    The  king  of  Scots  refused  to  appear,  and  threatened  war 

'Freeman,  Wm.  Rufus,  II,  p.  126;  Norman  Conq.,  I,  pp.  59,  124. 
■Green,  Hist.  Eng.,  I,  p.  229. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  99 

if  his  claims  were  not  conceded.  John  was  ready  neither  to 
yield  nor  to  fight,  and  evaded  a  final  answer  by  placing  the  dis- 
puted territory  under  the  care  of  a  powerful  baron,  while  he  has- 
tened over  sea.  Seeing  that  his  efforts  for  a  settlement  were  in 
vain,  the  king  of  the  Scots  collected  forces  to  carry  out  his  threat 
of  war.  But  doubt  and  fear  oppressed  him.  His  kingdom  had 
suffered  much  from  the  folly  of  his  youth.  Age  and  sickness 
were  breaking  down  his  spirit.  His  heir  was  hardly  out  of  the 
cradle,  and  not  yet  established  as  his  successor.  Seeking  for 
guidance,  he  spent  the  night  before  the  shrine  of  St.  Margaret, 
at  Dunfermline.  To  his  troubled  mind,  a  divine  admonition 
seemed  to  warn  him  against  attempting  to  secure  his  rights  by 
force.     He  accordingly  disbanded  his  army.1 

John  meanwhile  had  plunged  into  war  with  Philip  II.  Nor- 
mandy and  Aquitaine  had  submitted  to  him,  but  Anjou  declared 
for  Arthur.  Philip  supported  the  Angevins,  but  alienated  them 
by  retaining  the  castles  he  took.  This  led  to  a  truce  between 
the  kings,  during  which  John  returned  to  England.  Hoping  to 
meet  the  king  of  Scots,  he  came  to  York,  but  was  again  dis- 
appointed, and  returned  to  Normandy.  In  May  he  met  Philip, 
who  restored  to  him  Evreux  and  all  the  conquests  he  had  made 
in  Normandy.  John,  however,  became  the  "man"  of  Philip,  and 
conferred  all  he  had  just  received  on  Philip's  son  Louis,  as  his 
bride's  marriage  dower.  Having  thus  been  recognized  by  his 
feudal  lord  as  Richard's  heir,  he  again  crossed  the  channel  with 
his  new  wife,  Isabella  of  Angouleme,  and  was  recrowned  with 
her  at  Westminster.  He  now  sent  a  distinguished  delegation, 
many  of  them  related  to  the  king  of  Scotland  by  marriage,  "cum 
litteris  regiis  patentibus  de  salvo  conducto,"  to  bring  about  the 
long-deferred  meeting.     Earl  David  had   been  sent  previously, 

'Hoveden,  An.  1199.  The  sensitiveness  of  the  feudal  relation  between  the  two 
kingdoms  at  this  time  is  well  illustrated  by  an  insignificant  event.  A  flood  carried 
away  a  bridge  at  Berwick-on-Tweed.  The  king  of  Scots  ordered  Earl  Patrick  "  cus- 
tos  de  Berwic,"  to  rebuild  it.  But  the  bishop  of  Durham  forbade  him  to  sink  a  founda- 
tion for  it  on  the  lands  of  Durham.  The  bishop  at  length  yielded  the  point,  but  it 
was  "salva  conventione"  which  had  existed  between  the  bishop's  predecessor  and  the 
king  of  Scotland.     So  easy  was  it  to  establish  a  feudal  claim  without  any  basis  of  right. 


ioo  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

It  seems  probable  that  William  was  unwilling  to  meet  John  until 
the  latter  had  confirmed  Richard's  charter  of  dignities  and  liber- 
ties. Rumors  of  an  alliance  between  the  Scottish  heir  and  a 
French  princess  at  last  caused  John  to  hastily  dispatch  an  honor- 
able escort  to  the  north  with  the  desired  charter.  William's 
point  was  thus  gained,  and  in  November,  1200  A.  D.,  the  two 
kings  met  at  Lincoln  for  the  first  time,  to  discuss  the  points  at 
issue.  The  following  day  another  conference  was  held  on  a 
high  hill  outside  the  city,  and  William  there  did  homage  to  John 
in  the  sight  of  all  the  people.1  It  is  noteworthy  that  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  oaths  of  fealty  on  the  part  of  William's  barons, 
as  under  Henry  II.  The  vague  character  of  the  homage,  "  de 
jure  suo,"  with  the  reservation  by  William  "salvo  jure  suo,"  was 
evidently  part  of  an  agreement  with  John  that  after  homage  had 
been  rendered  the  Scottish  claims  should  receive  consideration 
and  settlement.  For  the  king  of  Scotland  at  once  demands 
"totam  Northumbriam,  Cumbriam,  et  Westmerilande,  sicut  jus  et 
haereditatem."  The  subject  was  discussed,  but  no  settlement 
was  reached,  and  John  asked  time  for  consideration.  It  was 
granted,  and  the  king  of  Scotland  returned  home.  The  treacher- 
ous John  then  asked  for  further  delay  and  crossed  over  to  Nor- 
mandy. What  the  final  outcome  was  is  unknown,  for  with  the 
close  of  Hoveden's  narrative  all  reference  to  the  subject  ceases. 
The  lack  of  a  northern  chronicler,  as  Mr.  Robertson  remarks,  is 
deeply  felt.  The  monk  of  St.  Albans  who  succeeds  Hoveden 
does  not  hesitate  to  omit  "salvo  jure  suo"  from  the  MS.  he 
copies,  when  it  guards  the  independence  of  the  northern  king- 
dom.2 

John's  base  conduct  in  securing  Isabella  as  his  wife  roused 
the  barons  of   Poitou  to  take   up  arms.     He   appealed  them   for 

1  Hoveden,  An.  1200  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  417,  note  ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  Nos.  299, 
292»  37l»  389.  396;  Hailes'  Annals,  I,  p.  151.  William  "devenit  homo  J.  regis 
Angliae  de  jure  suo  et  juravit  ei  fidelitatem  .  .  .  .  de  vita  et  membris  et  terreno  honore 
suo,  contra  omnes  homines  et  de  pace  servanda  sibi  et  regno  suo,  salvo  jure  suo." 

3  It  is  important  to  remember  the  feudal  custom  was  homage  first,  then  settlement 
of  fiefs.  (Hoveden,  An.  1201  ;  Wendover,  1200 ;  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  418;  II,  p. 
414,  and  often,  on  Lingard's  gross  inaccuracies.) 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  IOI 

treason,  but  they  refused  to  accept  his  wager  of  battle  and  turned 
to  Philip,  who  in  1202  summoned  John  to  answer  their  complaints 
before  his  peers.  John  refused  to  respond  and  was  declared  for- 
feited of  all  lands  which  he  held  as  Philip's  vassal.  His  wicked- 
ness and  tyranny,  the  death  of  Arthur,  and  the  growth  of  a 
national  spirit  among  the  French,  made  Philip's  conquest  of 
Normandy,  Maine,  Anjou,  Touraine,  and  part  of  Poitou,  an  easy 
matter. 

The  death  of  Hubert  Walter,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in 
1205,  also  involved  John  in  conflict  with  the  church,  and  in  1209 
he  was  formally  excommunicated  by  Innocent  III.  During  this 
period  the  relations  between  the  kings  of  England  and  Scotland, 
though  not  hostile,  were  far  from  cordial,  and  William's  devotion 
to  the  see  of  Rome,  after  the  interdict,  was  rewarded  by  a  papal 
bull,  which  confirmed  him  in  "every  liberty  and  immunity  that 
had  at  any  time  been  conferred  upon  the  king,  church,  or  king- 
dom of  Scotland."  But  there  had  been  no  absolute  break  with 
John.  A  letter  of  July  24,  1 205,  illustrates  the  diplomatic  negoti- 
ations which  were  being  carried  on,  some  of  which  were  kept 
secret : 

The  King  to  the  King  of  Scotland.  Thanks  him  much  for  the 
messengers  whom  he  sent,  and  the  good  answer  he  gives  regarding  the 
business  between  them,  which  he  hopes,  'Deo  Volente'  may  be  per- 
fected. Informs  him  that  the  messengers  are  retained  for  the  present, 
as  he  is  to  hold  a  council  of  his  bishops  and  barons  at  the  feast  of  the 
Blessed  Peter  'ad  vincula,'  on  account  of  the  death  of  H[ubert]  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury.  He  also  awaits  an  answer  from  R[oger]  con- 
stable of  Chester,  and  others  whom  he  had  sent  to  the  Scottish  king. 
And  after  taking  advice  of  the  Council  thereon,  and  getting  mean- 
while an  answer  from  his  said  messengers,  he  will  hasten  to  meet  William, 
as  he  shall  hear  from  them,  to  finish  the  above  business,  or  do  better 
as  God  shall  teach  him,  as  to  the  matters  pending  between  them. 
Assures  William  he  is  well  pleased  with  the  exception  made  in  his  letter 
regarding  the  land  of  Tundale  [Tynedale]  to  be  retained  by  him,  of 
which  no  mention  was  made  in  the  agreement  discussed  between  them, 
as  he  [William]  was  previously  seized  of  it.     Has  done  all  in  good  faith.1 

1  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  No.  368. 


I  o  2  ANGL  0-SCO  TCH  FE  UDAL  RELA  TIONS 

On  November  30,  of  the  same  year,  a  safe-conduct  was  issued, 
with  the  usual  escort,  for  a  meeting  at  York  in  the  following 
February.     It  grants  William 

....  if  by  chance,  '  quod  absit,'  he  (John)  withdraws  by  evil  or  other- 
wise, a  forty  days'  truce  before  returning  to  his  land,  so  that  in  the 
interim  there  may  be  no  forfeiture  by  John  or  his  men,  to  William,  his 
land  or  men ;  sends  him  Earl  David  his  brother,  to  remain  in  Scotland 
till  his  return,  as  he  asked  of  John  by  his  messengers.1 

This  entry  illustrates  the  scrupulous  care  necessary  to  guard 
against  John's  duplicity,  and  also  the  fact  that  the  possible  for- 
feiture of  the  English  fiefs  held  by  the  king  of  Scotland  and  his 
barons  was  a  matter  of  the  greatest  moment.  It  was  not  the 
fiefs  only,  important  as  they  were,  but  also  the  possible  right 
of  succession  to  the  English  crown  which  they  carried  with  them, 
that  so  often  influenced  the  policy  of  the  Scottish  kings.  They 
preferred  to  make  every  concession,  save  the  independence  of 
the  kingdom,  rather  than  imperil  their  possessions  and  claims  by 
an  appeal  to  the  sword.  It  was  this  policy  which  raised  up 
among  their  own  subjects  a  hostile  party,  which  threatened  to 
subvert  the  kingdom. 

Another  safe-conduct  was  issued  "  for  coming  to  treat  with  " 
John,  in  March,  1206-7,  and  the  last  of  June,  1207,  the  sheriff 
of  York  is  allowed  "  iol.  for  the  expenses  of  the  K.  of  Scots, 
for  the  first  year,  and  15I.  in  this  year,  when  he  (John)  was  last 
at  York."  Robert  fitz  Roger  is  allowed  30I.,  "  which  he  laid  out 
for  the  expenses  of  the  K.  of  Scots,  when  he  came  to  the  K.  at 
York,  by  the  K.'s  precept."  Again  in  October,  1207,  the  pro- 
cess is  repeated  for  a  meeting  "  at  Martinmas  next "  at  York, 
William  "to  stay  there  to  speak  with  him  [John]  and  to  return 
to  his  own  country."  Allowances  for  expenses  are  made, 
as  usual,  from  Yorkshire  (15I.)  and  Northumberland  (30I.). 
How  much  light  might  be  thrown  on  disputed  points  could 
the  tenor  of  these  private  meetings  and  compacts  be  known  ! 
The  above  entries  show  the  barrenness  of  the  English  chron- 
icles—  which  record   no  meetings  of  the   kings  between   1200 

1  Bain.,  I,  No.  368. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  1 03 

and    1209  —  and  confirm    the    accounts   of   the    Scottish    writ- 
ers.1 

In  the  meantime  England  and  Wales  were  suffering  the  pen- 
alties of  the  interdict,  which  only  served  apparently  to  increase 
John's  tyranny  and  cruelty.  His  subjects  "  began  seriously  to 
consider  what  prince  there  was  in  whose  bosom  they  might  find 
a  refuge."  The  sentence  of  excommunication  hung  over  the 
king's  head,  and  began  to  be  whispered  through  the  streets.  His 
efforts  to  build  a  castle  at  Tweedmouth,  threatening  the  grow- 
ing interests  of  Berwick,  had  also  aroused  warm  feeling  in  the 
north.  According  to  Fordun,  the  work,  begun  some  years  pre- 
viously, had  been  leveled  with  the  ground  by  the  Scots,  as  often 
as  the  English  attempted  its  erection.  A  stormy  meeting  of  the 
kings  in  1204  had  been  without  definite  results.  Now,  another 
foreign  alliance  was  set  on  foot,  which  probably  contemplated 
the  union  of  the  prince  of  Scotland  with  the  heiress  of  Hainault 
and  Flanders  —  a  project  which  would  receive  the  hearty  sup- 
port of  Philip.  As  lord  of  William's  English  fiefs,  John  had  a 
right  to  a  voice  in  the  marriage  of  his  children,  and  the  trans- 
mission of  those  fiefs.2  The  fort  at  Tweedmouth  had  been 
razed,  too,  and  any  foreign  alliance  was  looked  on  with  the 
suspicion  of  disloyalty.  For  these  reasons  John  prepared  to 
hasten  north  with  a  large  army.  The  king  of  Scotland,  posted 
at  Roxburgh,  was  summoned  to  meet  him  at  Newcastle.  His 
illness,  however,  delayed  negotiations,  and  his  final  answer, 
prompted  perhaps  by  the  war  party  in  Scotland,  roused  John's 
wrath.  The  king  of  England  had  already  expressed  joy  at 
William's  recovery,  and 

....  comes  to  meet  him  at  ....  to  confer  with  him  and  settle  matters 
long  discussed  between  them. 

Now,  he  threatens  war.     But  the  interests  which  bound  the 

1  Fordun  grows  more  reliable  as  he  approaches  his  own  era.  On  the  errors  of 
Wendover  cf.  Early  Kings,  I,  p.  423,  note ;  Bain,  I  Nos.  389,  396,  399,  401,  403,  410, 
417,  422. 

*This  shows  the  personal  feudal  relation  between  the  kings  and  their  families 
stretched  to  its  fullest  extent. 


104  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

men  of  the  two  kingdoms  to  a  peace  policy  prevailed,  and 
William  met  the  king  of  England  at  Norham  (Northampton  — 
Foedera)  to  treat  for  peace.  Terms  were  agreed  upon  in  August, 
1209.  William  promised  15,000  marks,  in  four  payments,  "  for 
having  the  good  will  of  his  said  lord  the  K.  of  England, 
and  fulfilling  the  conventions  between  them,  confirmed  on  either 
side  by  charters."     For  securing  payment  of  which  sums 

....  et  ad  praedictos  terminos  reddenda,  et  pro  eisdem  terminis 
fideliter  tenendis,  dedimus  ei  in  tenentiam,  obsides  nostros  quos  habet, 
et  qui  in  praedictis  Cartis  nostris  nominati  sunt ;  exceptis  duabis  filiabus 
nostris  quas  ei  liberavimus.  Et  cum  praedictam  pecuniam  .  .  .  .  ei 
persolverimus,  ipse  nobis  hanc  Cartam  nostram  reddet  quietam. 

The  omission  of  the  names  of  William's  daughters  from  the 
list  of  hostages  in  the  Close  Rolls,  and  the  exception  made 
above,  intimate  that  the  chroniclers  are  in  error  in  regarding 
them  as  hostages.  They  were  sent  to  England  to  be  married, 
and  remained  there  after  John's  death,  though  the  hostages  were 
restored.  In  1211-12  the  bishopric  of  Durham  reports  a  writ  of 
4I.  6s.  "  for  carriage  of  7,000  marks  of  the  K.  of  Scotland's  fine 
from  Norham  to  Nottingham."  The  Foedera  contains  "  Duae 
Cedulae  "  of  all  the  bulls,  charters,  and  other  muniments  in  the 
king  of  Scotland's  treasury  at  Edinburgh,  inspected  in  1282,  on 
the  order  of  Alexander  III,  by  three  of  his  clerks.  Among  the 
"  Negotia  tangentia  Angliam  "  the  following  occurs:  "Item, 
Litera  Reg.  Johannis,  ad  recipiendum  septem  mil.  et.  D.  Marc, 
ad  opus  Reg.  Angliae  pro  quodam  fine,  et  de  residuo  remittendo." 
This  corroborates  the  testimony  of  the  Exchequer  records, 
which  make  no  mention  of  any  further  payment.  Another 
entry  :  "  Item,  Litera  R.  Johannis  quod  non  possit  Castrum 
firmari  super  portum  de  Twedmuth,"  throws  light  on  John's  part 
in  the  treaty,  and  shows  that  William  maintained  the  stand  he 
had  taken  against  the  erection  of  an  English  fortress  at  Tweed- 
mouth.1 

'Fordun,  Annals,  §  XXV  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  418-20  ;  II,  p.  414  ;  Mt.  West., 
Triveti,  Hemingburgh,  An.  1209  ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  450-93  ;  Foedera,  I,  pp. 
215-16. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  105 

Having  also  secured  himself  against  the  forfeiture  of  his 
feifs  and  rights  in  England,  he  was  now  at  liberty  to  turn  against 
those  of  his  own  subjects  who  got  nothing  out  of  the  English 
alliance,  and  for  that  reason,  or  on  general  principles,  opposed 
it.1  John  also  had  pressing  demands  calling  him  to  the  south. 
In  this  year  he  received  the  homage  of  the  free  tenants  of  his 
realm,  and  compelled  the  Welsh  nobles  to  come  to  Woodstock  to 
perform  the  same  duty.  Had  Scotland  been  a  dependent  kingdom, 
her  nobles  would  have  received  a  similar  summons  as  they  did 
under  Henry  II.  The  rebellious  elements  in  both  kingdoms 
drew  the  kings  into  closer  alliance,  in  order  to  secure  the  suc- 
cession of  their  young  sons.  They  met  at  Durham,  and  subse- 
quently at  Norham,  the  queen  of  Scotland  also  using  her 
influence  to  secure  favorable  terms.  It  seems  probable  that  both 
kings  agreed,  in  case  of  the  death  of  one,  that  the  survivor 
should  support  the  rightful  heir  to  the  throne.  William  also 
granted  to  John  the  marriage  of  his  son  Alexander,  as  his  liege- 
man,2 within  six  years  from  date,  "  so  that  it  be  without  dis- 
paragement," and  both  father  and  son  promised  to  be  faithful  to 
John's  son  Henry  as  their  liege  lord,  and  to  maintain  him  in  his 
kingdom  with  all  their  power.  Alexander  was  knighted  soon 
after  by  the  English  king,  in  London.  This  arrangement  left 
John  free  from  any  fears  regarding  a  foreign  alliance  with  Scot- 
land, and  William  could  devote  his  failing  energies  to  putting 
down  the  rebellious  element  in  his  own  kingdom.3 

It  may  be  asked  why  the  English  kings  kept  up  an  arrangement  to  the  appar- 
ent advantage  of  the  king  of  Scots.  It  was  (1)  a  convenient  means  of  securing 
peace  on  the  border;  (2)  the  inevitable  outcome  of  the  relations  thus  established. 
Claims  were  originated  which  were  sure  of  a  marvelous  development.  (3)  An  effort 
to  realize  the  elusive  dream  of  becoming  overlord  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  or  of 
uniting  the  two  kingdoms  by  marriage.  The  effort  for  a  legislative  and  commercial 
union  of  two  independent  kingdoms  finds  its  opportunity  and  begins  to  take  form 
under  Edward  I,  but  is  foiled  by  the  death  of  the  Maid  of  Norway. 

"Alexander  seems  to  have  met  John  at  Alnwick  in  1210,  where  he  did  homage 
"pro  omnibus  rectitudinibus."  Payment  of  the  balance  of  the  15,000  marks  may 
have   been  remitted  here.     (Early  Kings,  I,  p.  424.) 

3Mt.  Paris,  Hist.  Ang.,  p.  119;  Fordun  Annals,  §  XXVI;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I, 
Nos.  501,  508,  518,  522;  Wendover,  An.  1212;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  424,  428. 


106  ANGLO  SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Events  in  England  were  hastening  the  advent  of  Magna 
Charta.  According  to  Hemingburgh,  the  revolt  of  the  barons 
was  precipitated  in  part  by  the  lust  of  their  king.  In  121 2  he 
mustered  his  forces  to  repress  a  fierce  rising  headed  by  Llewel- 
lyn of  Wales.  While  at  Nottingham  he  received  messages  from 
his  natural  daughter,  Joanna,  wife  of  Llewellyn,  and  from  the 
king  of  Scotland,  that  his  life  was  not  safe  if  he  ventured  into  the 
mountain  fastnesses  of  Wales.  He  put  more  faith  in  these  warn- 
ings because,  by  his  excommunication,  his  subjects  had  been 
absolved  from  their  allegiance  to  him.  He,  therefore,  disbanded 
his  army,  and  returning  to  London  demanded  hostages  from  all  his 
suspected  nobles.  Robert  fitz  Walter  and  Eustace  de  Vesci  were 
so  deeply  implicated  that  they  fled  —  the  former  to  France,  the 
latter  to  his  father-in-law,  the  king  of  Scotland.  For  De  Vesci 
had  married  his  natural  daughter,  Margaret.  John,  attracted  by 
her  beauty,  had  sought  her  out,  only  to  be  repulsed.  His  anger 
was  visited  on  De  Vesci,  who  may  have  planned  to  wipe  out  the 
insult  by  the  death  of  the  depraved  king.  Thus  the  conspiracy 
arose,  and  it  was,  perhaps,  through  his  daughter  that  William 
got  the  information  he  laid  before  John.  The  flight  of  the  lat- 
ter's  vassal  to  the  north  brought  him  again  to  the  frontier,  but 
the  illness  of  William  prevented  a  meeting.  John  urged  that 
Alexander  be  sent  in  his  father's  stead.  Though  he  offered 
magnificent  inducements,  the  majority  of  the  Scottish  council 
feared  his  duplicity,  and  declared  that  Alexander,  who  might  be 
retained  as  security  for  De  Vesci,  should  not  leave  the  kingdom. 
John  was,  therefore,  compelled  to  return  to  the  south  without 
accomplishing  his  object.1 

After  a  reign  of  almost  fifty  years,  William  the  Lion  passed 
away  amid  the  beautiful  surroundings  of  Stirling  castle  (Decem- 
ber 4,  12 14).  During  his  life  he  maintained  the  same  gen- 
eral relations  with  John  as  with  Richard.  The  legal  processes 
of  the  day  are  suggested  by  pleas — in  which  Earl  David 
appears — of  novel  disseizin,  concerning  boundaries,  etc.,  some 

1  Heming.  Chron.,  An.  1215;  Wendover,  An.  1212  ;  Early  Kings,  I,  pp.  430-1; 
Fordun,  Annals,  §  XXVII. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  107 

of  which  stand  over  sine  die,  "as  the  earl  is  in.  the  K.'s  service 

beyond  sea,"  or  "has  gone   to  Scotland  by  the  K.'s  precept," 

and  shall  meanwhile  "have  peace  from  all   impar- 

General  lances  summonses  and  demands."     The  position  of 

the  king  of  Scotland  as  tenant-in-chief  of  the  lands 
between  John  ° 

and  William      subinfeoffed   to   his   brother  is   clearly   shown.     A 
certain  Wido  sought  a  warrandice  from  Earl  David 
"of  the  land  of  which  he  had  a  charter"  from  the  earl's  grand- 
father.    David's  attorney 

....  came  and  said  that  the  Earl  was  not  the  heir  of  Earl  David,  his 
grandfather.  For  the  K.  of  Scotland  holds  that  heritage,  of  whom  the 
Earl  himself  holds.  The  Earl  has  not  taken  the  homage  of  Wido. 
The  court  decides  he  is  not  bound  to  warrant. 

But  David  also  held  lands  directly  of  the  king  of  England, 
as  illustrated  by  John's  grant  to  him  of  the  manor  of  Totham, 
"to  be  held  by  two  knights'  service,"  and  of  "all  Gumece^ster, 
and  25  marks  of  land  in  Nasinton  and  Jarewelle  for  the  service  of 
one  knight,  as  in  the  charters  of  his  brother  Richard."  It  is  this 
double  form  of  tenure  which  occasions,  and  at  the  same  time 
explains,  the  homages  of  the  King  of  Scotland  and  of  his  sons 
or  men  who  hold  lands  in  England,  either  under  him  or  directly 
of  the  English  king.  Such  barons  were  placed  in  an  unpleasant 
predicament  in  the  event  of  war,  nor  was  it  easy  to  avoid  con- 
flict in  time  of  peace.  A  good  illustration  is  the  case  of  Ranulf 
de  Bonekil,  a  well-known  border  chief,  who 

....  on  account  of  the  service  of  his  lord  the  K.  of  Scotland,  could 

not  attend  the  recognizance  of  great  assize He  is  not  to  be 

put  in  default,  or  lose  anything  by  absence,  as  the  K.  has  guaranteed 
him  that  day.  The  sheriff  is  also  to  accept  his  attorney  to  follow  the 
county  and  pleas,  and  do  suit  and  service  for  his  land.  The  K.  has 
granted  this,  for  the  love  &  at  the  request  of  Alexander,  son  of  the  K. 
of  Scots.1 

The  court  records  afford  many  examples  of  this  double 
tenure,  as  well  as  many  other  interesting  details  —  some  of  which 
ought  to  be  noted.     In  Northampton  "  Earl  David  owes  50  marks 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  269-71,  274,  290,  310,  542,  693. 


108  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

for  the  ward  of  the  land  and  the  heir  of  Stephen  de  Cameis." 
In  Cambridge  and  Huntingdon  he  owes  1,000  marks  "that  Henry 
his  son1  may  have  to  wife  Matilda  de  Calceto  (Cauz)  with  her 
land."  As  Henry  failed  to  get  the  lady  the  fine  was  remitted, 
and  the  rich  heiress  of  Ralf  de  Cornhille  was  given  him  instead, 
"with  the  land  pertaining  to  her." 

The  expansion  of  commerce  appears  in  a  number  of  interest- 
ing entries,  showing  the  relations  of  the  two  kingdoms.  Fre- 
quent mention  is  made  of  scutage,  sometimes  due,  often  dis- 
charged to  Earl  David.  William  de  Breosa  "gives  ten  bulls  and 
ten  cows  not  to  go  to  Scotland  to  attend  the  K.  of  Scotland  to 
the  K."  Aaron,  a  famous  Jew  of  Lincoln,  passes  into  history  as 
the  creditor  of  the  king  of  Scotland  to  the  amount  of  2,7761., 
for  which  Earl  David  became  surety.* 

One  of  the  most  striking  illustrations  of  the  complicated 
nature  of  the  feudal  relation  at  this  period  is  the  case  of  Alan 
and  Thomas,  of  Galloway.  This  district  was  exceedingly  restive 
under  Scottish  overlordship.  Malcolm  IV  repressed  this  spirit, 
but  after  the  capture  of  William  the  Lion  the  turbulence  of  the 
lords  of  Galloway  became  more  marked  than  ever.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  made  at  Falaise  they,  with  the  other  Scottish 
barons,  swore  fealty  to  Henry  II.  Though  lawfully  still  subject 
to  the  king  of  Scots,  they  sought,  and  seem  in  one  case  to  have 
obtained,  the  right  of  direct  dependence  upon  the  crown  of  Eng- 
land, even  for  their  lands  in  Galloway.  This  was  a  distinct 
infringement  of  William's  rights,  as  set  forth  in  the  articles  of 
Falaise,  but  he  seems  to  have  acquiesced  in  the  usurpation, 
either  because  he  did  not  feel  strong  enough  to  resent  it  by 
force,  or  because  it  was  arranged  in  some  of  the  secret 
treaties  between  himself  and  John.  A  charter  of  John's  (July 
8,  1212) 

....  grants  to  Edgar  son  of  Dovenald  the  reasonable  gift  made  by 
Henry  the  K.'s  father,  of  his  own  land,  and  all  the  land  which  Ewarn 

1  Henry  of  Brechin,  a  natural  son.     (Bain,  I,  Nos.  281,  334,  350,  365.) 

•Bain,  I,  Nos.  273,  558;  331,  363,  452,  599,  600;  282,  375,  433.  457,  4^4, 
490. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  109 

his  brother  held  in  Straddune  of  the  K.  of  Scotland,  the  day  he  died. 
To  be  held  in  fee  as  in  Henry's  charter. 

The  same  day  the  king  received  the  homage  of  Edgar  and 
his  son  Fergus,  and  took  "themselves,  their  men,  their  lands, 
tenures,  and  possessions,  into  his  protection ;  and  warrants  them 
as  his  own  domains  against  all  injuries."  And  under  the  same 
date  is  an  entry  "for  the  expenses  of  Edgar  de  Gaweia  (of  Gal- 
loway), who  came  to  the  K.  with  twenty  horses  and  twenty  men, 
for  four  days."  Mr.  Bain  says  these  charters  "are  remarkable 
as  evidence  of  the  claim  of  superiority  over  Cumbria,  for  the 
name  of  the  land,  'Straddune,'  indicates  a  site  north  of  the  Sol- 
way."  But  the  inference  does  not  seem  well  taken.  For,  while 
the  land  very  possibly  lay  north  of  the  Solway,  there  is  every 
evidence  that  the  king  of  England  was  acting  beyond  his  rights 
in  making  grants  there,  availing  himself  of  the  conditions  which 
arose  after  the  capture  of  the  Scottish  king  and  of  the  hostility 
which  the  Galwegians  felt  to  their  natural  and  customary  over- 
lord. The  charters  are  rather  against  the  claim  to  superiority  in 
Scottish  Cumbria  than  otherwise.  John  speaks  of  the  reaso?iable 
gift — an  expression  not  met  with  elsewhere.  He  takes  Edgar 
and  his  son  Fergus,  "their  men,  their  lands,  tenures,  and  pos- 
sessions, into  his  protectio?i;"  he  warrants  them  "as  his  own 
domains,  against  all  injuries."  These  expressions,  when  viewed 
in  the  light  of  Galloway's  previous  hostility  to  the  kings  of 
Scotland  and  her  punishment  for  the  same,  seem  to  indicate  an 
unjustifiable  action  on  John's  part  and  a  fear  of  Scottish  reprisals 
on  the  part  of  his  vassals.  In  any  case,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  this  condition  existed  till  after  the  capture  of  the  Scottish 
king,  nor  was  the  usurpation  based  on  any  precedent  claim  of 
superiority  over  this  region.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Galloway, 
as  a  whole,  remained  under  the  independent  control  of  the  kings 
of  Scotland,  except  during  the  later  years  of  Henry  II.  The  fact 
that  this  grant  of  lands  north  of  the  Solway  is  the  only  instance 
of  its  kind,  invites  the  query  whether  after  all  "Straddune"  was 
not  south  of  the  Solway,  among  the  English  fiefs  of  the  Scottish 
king,  or  among  the  "debatable  lands"  on  the   western  border, 


1 1 o  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELA TIONS 

which  continued  to  be  a  refuge  for  outlaws  and  criminals  as  late 
as  the  union  of  the  two  kingdoms,  in  1707.1 

Thomas  and  Alan  of  Galloway  held  extensive  fiefs  in  Eng- 
land. From  Worcestershire  account  is  rendered  against 
Thomas  of  "  1000  marks  for  having  the  land  which  was  Hugh 
de  Say's."  From  Warwickshire  he  makes  return  for  "two 
knights  and  four  parts."  He  had  large  holdings  in  Ireland, 
besides  his  earldom  of  Athol  in  Scotland.  Alan  occupied  a  still 
more  prominent  place.  He  was  the  son  of  Roland,  already 
mentioned,  who,  though  he  did  homage  to  Henry  II  with  the 
Scottish  barons,  remained  a  loyal  vassal  of  William  the  Lion, 
apparently  marrying  into  the  royal  family.  Alan  succeeded  his 
father  in  the  high  office  of  constable  of  Scotland.  His  wife  was 
the  eldest  daughter  of  Earl  David  and  the  earl  of  Chester's 
sister.  He  was  also  related  to  King  John,  who  conferred  on 
him  large  estates  in  Ireland.  Through  his  mother,  Helena,  a 
daughter  of  Richard  de  Moreville,  he  inherited  English  fiefs  in 
the  shires  of  Northampton  and  Rutland.  Hence  it  is  not  strange 
to  find  him  assisting  John  in  his  wars  in  Wales.  There  is  no 
evidence,  however,  that  either  he  or  Thomas  were  anything  but 
loyal  vassals  of  William  the  Lion  for  their  possessions  in  Scot- 
land and  Galloway.2 

1  Cf.  Enc.  Brit,  on  Cumberland ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Introd.,  p.  xxxii,  Nos.  523, 
525-6. 

2  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  426,  500,  513,  519,  531,  550,  553,  560,  573,  580,  583-6. 
July  20,  1212:  The  K.  to  his  faithful  cousin  Alan  de  Galweia.  "Requests  him 
for  the  great  business  regarding  which  he  lately  asked  him,  and  as  he  loves  him,  to 
send  him  1000  of  his  best  and  most  active  Galwegians  so  as  to  be  at  Chester  on  Sun- 
day next  after  the  assumption  of  the  Blessed  Mary  instant.  And  if  he  can  send  them 
at  his  own  cost.it  will  greatly  please  the  K.;  but  if  not,  he  is  to  send  them  to  Carlisle, 
where  the  K.  will  provide  their  pay ;  and  Alan  is  to  place  over  them  a  constable,  who 
knows  how  to  keep  peace  in  the  KVs  army  and  harass  his  enemies."  In  August  he 
receives  300  marks  "by  way  of  gift,"  "to  pay  his  squires  who  had  come  with  him  in 
the  K.'s  service  for  the  army  of  Wales."  Had  Galloway  been  a  dependency  of  the 
English  crown,  Alan  would  have  been  summoned  as  any  other  English  baron.  The 
King,  however,  begs  a  favor  of  him,  on  the  plea  of  kinship  and  his  great  need,  and  of 
the  favors  Alan  had  received  at  his  hands.  He  promises  to  pay  the  men  if  necessary, 
and  eventually  does  so.  This  rather  contravenes  the  evidence  for  the  claim  of  supe- 
riority over  Cumbria,  and  makes  it  necessary  to  explain  the  grant  of  Straddune  on  some 
other  basis.     (Bain,  I,  Nos.  529,  533.) 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  III 

The  apparently  dry  Exchequer  Records  afford  an  interesting 

glimpse  of  the  social  life  of  the  thirteenth  century,  in  accounting 

for  the  expenses  of  the   Scottish  princesses  corn- 
Social  Life  .   .      T   ,     ,  „      „  *       _,. 

mitted  to  Johns  care.     Geoffrey  fitz  Piers  "owes 

ten  palfreys  and  ten  goshawks,  that  the  K.  of  Scotland's  daugh- 
ters may  not  be  committed  to  him  in  ward."  He  is  pardoned  the 
palfreys,  and  only  the  goshawks  may  be  demanded.  Their  jour- 
ney from  Bristol  to  Nottingham  is  accompanied  by  the  convoy 
of  48,000  marks  from  the  Bristol  treasury.  36I.  18s.  4d.  are 
expended  "for  the  robes  of  the  K.  of  Scotland's  daughters  and 
their  governesses"  (magistrarum).  At  Windsor  two  seams 
(summae)  of  fish,  fifty  pounds  of  almonds  (amigdalarum) ,  and 
one  hundred  pounds  of  figs  (figis)  are  bought  for  their  use.  At 
Nottingham  they  have  robes  of  green,  trimmed  with  rabbits' 
fur,  and  russet  hoods.  There  is  also  a  russet  rain-hood  (capa 
pluvialis)  for  the  use  of  their  master.  Their  father  sends  the 
royal  falconers  with  a  gift  of  girfalcons  to  the  king,  and  Adam 
de  la  Mark  receives  20s.  by  way  of  gift,  for  carrying  a  like  present 
from  John  to  the  king  of  Scotland.  In  May,  1213,  the  princesses 
are  "at  the  house  of  the  Temple,  near  Dover."  The  last  of  June 
they  are  at  Corfe,  and  the  king  commands  the  mayor  and  reeves 
of  Winchester  to  provide  for  the  queen,  his  niece  [Eleanor 
of  Brittany],  and  the  two  daughters  of  the  king  of  Scotland, 
"robes  and  hoods,  and  other  necessary  clothes."  In  July  the 
mayor  is  to  send  "in  haste"  robes  of  dark  green,  and  for  the 
use  of  the  three  maids  robes  of  bright  green,  a  hood  for  rainy 
weather,  cloaks  furred  with  lambskin,  thin  summer  shoes  (stiva- 
lia),  and  a  saddle  with  gilded  reins  for  the  king's  niece.  But 
back  of  all  this  there  lay  a  distinct  political  purpose.  There  is 
little  doubt  that  John  intended,  contrary  to  his  agreements,  to 
retain  the  princesses  in  his  charge,  unmarried,  in  order  that, 
should  anything  befall  the  sole  male  heir  of  William  the  Lion, 
he  might  marry  his  son  Henry  to  one  of  William's  daughters,  and 
thus  place  the  crowns  of  England  and  Scotland  upon  the  head 
of  his  own  heir.1 

^ain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  463,  530,  544,  559,  562-4,  572,  579,  581;  Early  Kings, 
I,  p.  423,  note. 


1 1 2  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELA TLONS 

The  death  of  William  the  Lion  left  his  son,  Alexander  II,  a 

boy  of    sixteen    years,  as  king  of  Scotland  at  a  very  critical 

period  in  the  history  of  English  liberties.     As  John 

'     remained  obdurate,  the  pope  had  declared  his  depo- 
1214-1249  r   \  r 

sition,  and  transferred  his  crown  to  the  king  of 
France.  This  agreed  perfectly  with  the  schemes  of  Philip 
Augustus,  and  he  at  once  gathered  an  army  to  enforce  the  papal 
decree.  John  also  summoned  his  barons  to  oppose  Philip's  land- 
ing. But  he  knew  how  bitterly  many  of  them  hated  him.  He 
had  already  been  warned  of  the  intrigues  against  his  life.  It 
was  apparently  the  revelation  of  this  conspiracy  at  home  which 
now  led  him  to  suddenly  yield  all  the  papal  demands.  The 
exiled  clergy  were  recalled,  before  whom  the  king  made  abject 
submission.  Homage  for  England  and  Ireland,  and  an  annual 
tribute  of  1,000  marks,  stamped  him  as  the  vassal  of  the  pope. 
The  statement  that  England  "thrilled  with  a  sense  of  shame" 
is  perhaps  too  strong.  The  chonicles  only  faintly  suggest  such 
an  idea.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  John  went  to  the  extreme 
limit  in  his  subjection  to  the  papal  see.  Even  the  imperious 
demands  of  Gregory  VII  had  failed  to  win  any  such  concession 
from  Henry  IV.  But  as  a  political  move  the  act  was  worthy  of 
the  king's  wily  diplomacy.  It  rendered  the  preparations  of  his 
enemies  useless.  It  brought  the  censure  of  the  pope  upon  the 
barons  who  resisted  the  demand  for  service  across  the  sea.  It 
added  the  hearty  support  of  Rome  to  that  of  John's  sister's  son, 
the  Emperor  Otto  IV,  and  resulted  in  a  joint  attack  on  Philip. 
But  the  defeat  of  the  imperial  forces  at  Bouvines1  compelled 
John  to  a  truce  without  having  regained  anything  north  of  the 
Loire,  and  turned  the  tide  of  events  in  favor  of  English  freedom. 
In  the  struggle  between  the  king  and  his  barons,  Earl  David, 
now  an  aged  man,  had  not  escaped  the  suspicion  of  John.  A 
curt  dispatch  of  August  21,  121 2,  commands  him  to  immediately 
deliver  up  the  castle  of  Fotheringeia  for  the  king's  use.  His 
son  is  held  as  a  hostage  for  his  fidelity.  In  October,  however, 
he  is  again  in  the  king's  service,  and  in  June,  121 3,  has  the  ward 

1  1214  A.  D.    (Wendover,  Ad.  an.) 


PERIOD  OF  THE  GREAT  CHARTER  113 

of  a  son  of  David  de  Lindescie,  a  hostage  of  the  king.  But  in 
July  or  August  of  the  following  year  Peter,  bishop  of  Winches- 
ter writes  that  he 

....  has  much  to  discuss  with  him  regarding  the  affairs  of  the  K. 
and  his  kingdom,  and  directs  him,  as  he  loves  the  K.'s  honour,  and 
himself,  and  his  hostages,  and  whatever  he  holds  of  the  K.,  to  put 
aside  all  delay  and  hindrance,  and  come  to  the  parts  of  London,  where 
he  shall  hear  the  writer  is,  ....  to  discuss  said  matters. 

A  little  later  the  king  commands  the  sheriffs  of  Cambridge 
and  Huntingdon  shires 

....  to  give  to  his  beloved  and  faithful  Earl  David,  his  third  penny 
in  these  counties,  as  he  used  to  have. 

And  an  order  from  Runnymede,  June  21,  121 5,  restores  his 
hostages  and  the  castle  of  Foderingeya  to  him,  as  he  "is  to  per- 
form homage  to  the  K."1 

On  the  death  of  William  the  Lion,  Alexander  had  been  at 
once  crowned  king  of  Scotland  at  Scone.  Though  he  sympa- 
thized with  the  English  barons  and  had  from  them  a  promise  of 
the  northern  counties  in  return  for  his  co-operation,  he  took  no 
active  part,  and  in  July,  121 5,  sent  messengers  to  John  "regard- 
ing his  affairs  at  the  English  court."  But  after  the  king  had 
repudiated  his  oath  to  the  barons  at  Runnymede,  Alexander 
crossed  the  border  with  his  men  and  allied  himself  definitely 
with  the  king's  enemies.  The  northern  counties  were  made 
over  to  him  as  promised,2  and  the  barons  of  Northumberland  and 
Yorkshire,  having  first  destroyed  the  means  of  subsistence,  retired 
with  the  Scottish  forces  across  the  border  and  tendered  their 
allegiance  to  the  king  of  Scots.  John  set  out  for  the  north  with 
his  Flemings  and  Brabanters,  and  ravaged  the  country  as  far  as 
Haddington,  but  was  forced  to  retire  for  want  of  supplies.  The 
Scots  retaliated  by  ravages  in  Cumberland.3 

•Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  534,  539,  541,  574,  601,  616,  622-3. 

*  The  staff  used  by  De  Vesci  in  the  ceremony  was  subsequently  carried  off  by 
Edward  I.     Cf.  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  4-5,  note. 

3Fordun,  Annals,  §§  29,  33,  34;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  II,  p.  641  ;  Bain,  I,  No. 
629;  Foedera,  I,  p.  203. 


1 1 4  ANGLO-SCO TCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TIONS 

The  reversal  of  the  pope's  attitude  toward  John  and  his  bar- 
ons in  the  contest  for  their  liberties,  and  the  insufferable  inso- 
lence and  cruelty  of  the  king,  resulted  in  an  appeal  to  France. 
Philip's  eldest  son  Louis  had  a  quasi  claim  to  the  throne  through 
his  wife,  Blanche  of  Castile,  who  was  a  grand-daughter  of  Henry 
II.  To  the  papal  opposition  Philip  replied  that  the  king  of 
England  had  no  right  to  transfer  his  kingdom  to  another  without 
the  consent  of  his  barons.  The  ambition  of  Blanche  urged  her 
husband  to  action,  and  in  May,  1216,  he  landed  on  the  island  of 
Thanet.  Alexander  again  crossed  the  northern  border,  and 
marched  triumphantly  throughout  the  length  of  England  to 
Dover,  where  he  met  Louis  and  did  homage  to  him  "de  jure 
suo,  quod  de  rege  Anglorum  tenere  debuit."  John  meanwhile, 
wrathful  but  impotent,  was  planning  to  intercept  and  cut  off  the 
Scottish  forces  on  their  return.  But  disaster  overtook  him  while 
crossing  the  Wash,  and  his  death  followed  soon  after.  It  is  said 
that  his  own  camp  was  sacked  by  the  very  army  he  had  schemed 
to  destroy.1 

'Fordun,  Annals,  §  35 ;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  II,  pp.  666-7. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    REIGN    OF    ALEXANDER    II. 

The    guardianship    of    John's    nine-year-old    son,   who    was 
crowned  in  his  father's  stead,  was  at  once  assumed  by  William 

the  Marshall,  earl  of  Pembroke,  and  Gualo,  the 
Henry  III,  ,      ,  TT    ,  ,.     _        .        ,  . 

papal  legate.  Hubert  de  Burgh  also  remained 
1216-1272 

loyal,  refusing  to  surrender  the  castle  of  Dover  to 

Louis.  The  national  spirit  was  growing,  and  men  hoped  for 
better  things  from  Henry  than  they  had  received  from  John. 
Hence,  Louis'  cause  steadily  lost  ground,  and  peace  soon  fol- 
lowed the  battle  of  Lincoln  (121 7).  Alexander's  kingdom  was 
placed  under  an  interdict  because  he  allied  himself  with  the 
enemies  of  John,  and  refused  to  surrender  the  castle  of  Carlisle, 
which  he  had  taken,  to  Henry.  But  a  milder  policy  prevailed 
under  Honorius   III.     In   his  first  year  he  wrote  a 

Alpxdndcr 

fatherly  letter  to  Alexander,  urging  him  to  give  up 
the  alliance  with  Louis,  and  to  renew  his  fealty  to 
the  king  of  England.  He  promised  him  the  especial  grace  and 
favor  of  the  Apostolic  See,  "and  moreover  to  aid  him  in  recov- 
ering Henry's  favor,  and  also  his  own  right."  The  treaty 
between  Henry  and  Louis  admitted  Alexander  to  its  terms,  on 
condition  of  restoring  the  castle  of  Carlisle,  and  a  reconciliation 
was  soon  brought  about.  At  the  same  time  Alexander  was 
released  from  the  interdict,  though  the  craft  of  Gualo  is  said  to 
have  withheld  a  like  favor  from  the  people  and  clergy  of  Scot- 
land, until  they  had  "slaked  the  thirst  of  his  money  bag  with 
draughts  of  money."1 

Safe-conducts  were  issued  in  November,  12 17,  and  the  con- 
stable  of  Chester  was  ordered  to  meet  Alexander  at  Berwick, 

•Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  664,668;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  Ad.  an ;  Fordun, 
Annals,  §§  36,  37. 

"5 


Il6  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

and  escort  him  to  Northampton,  where  he  did  homage,  and  was 
put  in  full  possession  of  his  fiefs.  On  December  19  Henry- 
wrote  to  the  sheriff  of  Lincoln,  commanding  him  —  as  Alexander, 
king  of  Scotland,  "has  come  to  his  allegiance  (ad  fidem  et  ser- 
vicium)  and  has  done  to  the  K.  what  he  ought  to  do1 — to  give 
the  said  K.  seizin  of  his  lands  and  tenements  which  Earl  David 
held  of  him  (de  eo)  in  his  bailliary  of  the  honour  of  Hunting- 
don." (Similar  writs  were  sent  to  the  sheriffs  of  ?iine  counties  — 
Leicester,  Cambridge  and  Huntingdon,  Northampton,  Rutland, 
Bedford  and  Buckingham,  Essex  and  Middlesex.)  This  letter 
shows:  (1)  the  extent  of  the  English  fiefs  held  by  the  king  of 
Scotland  ;  (2)  the  fact  that  the  earl  of  Huntingdon  held  that 
honor  and  other  lands  of  the  king  of  Scotland  as  tenant-in- capite ; 
(3)  that  these  lands  had  been  so  held  before  the  meeting  at 
Northampton.  The  homage  done  for  them  previously  was  now 
repeated  in  token  of  peace  and  renewal  of  fealty.2 

Two  years  later  Alexander's  uncle,  David,  died.  One  son, 
John  "the  Scot,"  survived  him.     The  custody  of  the  honor  of 

Huntingdon,  till  the  heir  should  come  of  age,  was 
Death  of  1  a  1  1  a  1 

granted    to   Alexander    as    tenant-m-capite .     About 

this  time  he  set  negotiations  on  foot  to  bring  about 
the  marriage  of  himself  and  his  sisters.  The  limit  of  six  years 
stipulated  in  the  last   agreement   between  his  father  and  John 

had  already  expired,  and  nothing  had  been   done. 

Alexander  referred  the  matter  to  Honorius,  who, 
Alexander  '  ' 

in  1 2 18,  had  confirmed  in  the  strongest  terms  the 
liberties  and  independence  of  church,  kingdom,  and  king  of 
Scotland.  Conferences  were  held  at  Norham  between  Alexan- 
der, Pandulph,  the  papal  legate,  and  Stephen  de  Segrave,  chief 
procurator  for  the  king  of  England.  An  agreement  was  finally 
reached  and  arrangements  made  for  a  meeting  of  the  kings  at 
York  in  June,  1230.     The  earl  of  Warrenne  conducted  the  royal 

*  A  general  term  used  with  reference  to  any  expression  of  homage  or  fealty.  Cf. 
Bain,  I,  No.  743.  The  widow  of  Gerard  de  Furnevalle  is  commanded  "  to  do  to  Alex., 
K.  of  Scotland,  what  she  ought,  for  the  lands  held  of  him  in  England." 

*Bain,  I,  Nos.  673,  678-9,  684,  686.  On  Lingard's  statements  cf.  Early 
Kings,  II,  p.  8. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  II  1 1 7 

guest  from  Berwick  bridge.  There  are  the  usual  entries  for  the 
corrody  of  the  king.  Henry  promised  to  give  Alexander  his 
eldest  sister,  Joanna,  in  marriage.  If  this  could  not  be  done,1  he 
should  have  the  younger  sister,  Isabella,  within  fifteen  days  of 
the  ensuing  feast  of  St.  Michael.  Margaret  and  Isabella,  sisters 
of  the  king  of  Scotland,  were  to  be  honorably  married  within  a 
year,  within  the  realm  of  England;*  or  if  not,  they  were  to  be 
returned  safely  within  a  month  after  the  said  term,  to  their  own 
land.  Alexander  agreed  to  this  arrangement,  and  documents 
properly  witnessed  were  exchanged  on  both  sides.3 

The  following  May  the  king  of  Scotland  was  escorted  with 
all  the  feudal  honors  and  dignities  of  his  forefathers  from  Ber- 
wick to  the  Tees  by  the  archbishop  of  York,  the  earls  and  barons 
and  sheriff  of  Northumberland,  and  the  seneschal  of  the  bishop 
of  Durham,  who  was  the  king's  chancellor ;  and  from  the  Tees, 
by  the  sheriff  and  barons  of  York,  to  the  capital  of  the  north, 
where  his  marriage  with  Joanna  was  duly  solemnized.  At  the 
same  time  his  sister  Margaret  was  wedded  to  Hubert  de  Burgh, 
the  powerful  justiciar  and  practical  ruler  of  England.4  So  long 
as  this  man  stood  at  the  head  of  affairs,  there  was  peace  and 
justice  between  the  two  kingdoms.  He  represented  the  national 
spirit,  and  was  intensely  jealous  of  foreign  control.  After  his 
fall,  in  1232,  and  the  rise  of  his  enemy,  the  Poitevin  Peter  des 
Roches,  bishop  of  Winchester,  to  the  place  of  chief  adviser  to 
the  crown,  the  old  system  of  encroachment  on  the  liberties  and 
independence  of  Scotland  was  revived. 

1  Hugh  de  Lusignan,  count  de  la  Marche,  was  to  have  married  her,  but  preferred 
the  widowed  Queen  Isabella  instead.  He  continued  his  custody  of  the  daughter,  how- 
ever, hoping  to  profit  thereby,  and  it  was  with  difficulty  that  Henry  secured  possession 
of  her. 

a  This  clause  marks  the  jealousy  of  a  foreign  alliance. 

3  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  730,  732,  734,  739,  740,  749,  755-6,  758,  761-2,  766; 
Foedera,  I,  p.  227 ;  Annal.  Dunst.,  An.  1220 ;  Fordun,  Annals,  §§  31,  40. 

*  The  marriage  of  Isabella  to  Roger  le  Bigod,  son  and  heir  of  Hugh,  earl  of  Nor- 
folk, did  not  take  place  till  the  summer  of  1225.  The  third  part  of  all  Roger's  lands 
were  given  her  in  dower  "according  to  the  law  and  custom  of  England."  The  king 
of  Scotland  has  ward  of  the  lands  of  Roger  till  he  reaches  his  majority.  (Mt.  Paris, 
Chron.  Maj.,  An.  1221  ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  803,806,808-9,906,909,925,939, 
940,  1002-5.     On  the  reasons  for  the  fall  of  De  Burgh  see  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  24.) 


1 1 8  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TIONS 

Meanwhile,  however,  Alexander  was   freely   exercising  his 
rights  as  the  independent  sovereign  of  Scotland  in  putting  down 
a  revolt  in  Argyle.     In  1234  the  death  of  Alan  fitz 
Roland    caused    disturbances  in   Galloway,   which 
were  also  successfully  repressed.1    The  sources  fur- 
nish fresh  proof  of  an  independent  Scottish  supremacy  north  of 
the  Solway.     Both  Alan  and  his  father  held  English  fiefs,  but 
they  were  first  of  all  devoted  to   the  interests  of  the  king  of 
Scotland,  nor  did  the  double  relation  they  sustained2  in  any  way 

1  He  left  three  daughters,  but  no  son.  The  men  of  Galloway  appealed  to  Alex- 
ander to  prevent  its  partition  among  the  heiresses,  and  rallied  around  a  natural  son  of 
Alan.  But  they  were  defeated,  and  the  daughters  of  Alan  were  confirmed  and  main- 
tained in  their  rights  by  the  Scottish  king.  About  the  same  time  Alexander  strength- 
ened his  interests  among  the  barons  who  headed  the  national  party  in  England  by 
giving  his  youngest  sister,  Marjory,  in  marriage  to  Gilbert  the  Marshall,  earl  of  Pem- 
broke, the  rites  being  honorably  celebrated  at  Berwick.  (Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  Ill, 
pp.  364-5.     Cf.  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  25  ;    Annal.  Dunstap.,  An.  1235.) 

■The  sheriff  of  Rutland  is  commanded  "to  take  in  the  K.'s  hand  Alan  de  Gal- 
weia's  land  in  Wissendene,  which  the  K.  committed  to  Earl  David  till  Alan  did  hom- 
age to  the  K."  "The  justiciar  of  Ireland  is  commanded  to  allow  Thomas  de  Gal- 
weia,  who  has  done  homage  to  the  K.,  to  hold  the  lands  given  him  by  K.  John  in 
Ireland  in  peace,  according  to  his  charters."  In  answer  to  a  letter  of  Alan's  regard- 
ing the  lands  he  held  of  the  English  crown  Henry  writes  :  "  The  king  has  ordered 
that  his  lands  in  Ireland,  given  by  K.  John,  shall  now  be  restored,  and  letters  to  this 
effect  have  been  sent  ....  to  the  justiciar  of  Ireland.  The  K.  farther  informs  him 
that  he  and  great  part  of  his  council  are  to  meet  Alexander]  K.  of  Scotland,  and 
great  part  of  his  council  at  York  at  that  day  (sic),  to  discuss  matters  relating  to  their 
two  kingdoms ;  therefore  he  directs  Alan  to  come  there  on  the  foresaid  day,  to  do  his 
homage  and  fealty,  and  grant  the  charter  of  his  faithful  service,  and  the  K.  will  will- 
ingly do  regarding  Alan's  English  lands  what  he  ought  to  do  de  jure"  A  writ  of 
June  16  orders  the  sheriff  of  Rutland  to  give  Alan  seizin  of  his  land  and  its  issues 
from  date  of  first  writ,  as  he  has  done  homage.  (Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  718,  722, 
955,  763-4.)  These  citations  again  show  (1)  that  homage  preceded  the  conferring  of 
fiefs.  The  process,  therefore,  had  no  validity  till  it  was  complete.  Homage  was  con- 
sequently often  expressed  vaguely,  or  with  a  reservation  —  "salvo  jure  suo,"  and  some 
English  historians  have  claimed  such  homage  by  the  kings  of  Scotland  as  being  for 
their  kingdom.  It  might  as  properly  be  claimed  that  the  homage  of  Alan  was  for  his 
lands  in  Galloway,  though  after  the  homage  his  English  lands  are  expressly  men- 
tioned. They  show  (2)  how  intricate  the  relations  between  the  kingdoms  were  becom- 
ing ;  how  an  unscrupulous  king  in  an  appeal  to  the  pope,  for  example,  might  be 
tempted  to  twist  the  homage  of  the  constable  of  Scotland  for  lands  in  England  and 
Ireland  so  as  to  include  lands  in  Scotland.  It  was  only  by  the  exercise  of  the  most 
scrupulous  care,  which  becomes  increasingly  manifest,  that  the  perversion  of  feudal 
rights  was  prevented. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  II  119 

affect  the  independence  of  the  land  of  their  nativity.  The  atti- 
tude of  Alexander  during  these  events  is  in  striking  contrast 
with  that  of  William  the  Lion  under  Henry  II. 

The  fall  of  Hubert  de  Burgh  and  the  death  of  Richard  the 

Marshall  opened  the  way  for  a  revival  of  the  English  claims  to 

supremacy  in  Scotland.     The  first  act  of  hostility 

Hostile  Policy    uncjer    the    reign    Gf    the  new    favorite,    Peter    des 

.     „  Roches,    was  the  ratification   by    the    king    of   an 

land  *  ° 

appeal  which  the  archbishop  of  York 

....  is  about  to  make  ....  against  Alexander]  K.  of  Sots  having 
himself  crowned,  in  prejudice,  both  of  the  royal  dignity  and  of  the 
liberty  of  the  said  archbishop  and  his  church. 

The  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Falaise  were  adroitly  set 
forth  as  part  of  the  later  agreements  between  John  and  William, 
and  drew  from  Gregory  IX  a  letter  favorable  to  the  English 
cause.  The  true  purpose  and  character  of  the  transaction  have 
already  been  exposed ;  the  king's  claim  had  as  little  basis  of 
right  as  did  that  resuscitated  by  the  archbishop  of  York.1 
Alexander's  reply  was  a  demand  on  the  king  for  the  satisfaction 
of  his  claims  in  the  north  of  England.  He  declares,  says 
Matthew  of  Paris,  that  he  had  charters,  witnessed  by  many  of 
the  bishops  and  chief  clergy,  and  of  the  earls  and  barons,  certi- 
fying that  King  John  had  given  him  "  terram  Northamhumbriae  " 
with  his  daughter  Joanna  "  in  maritagium  ; "  that  it  was  infamous 
for  a  king  to  annul  a  pact  thus  made  and  witnessed.  He  added 
that  unless  what  approved  itself  as  his  evident  right  should  be 
granted  peaceably,  he  would  demand  it  with  the  sword.  Many 
of  the  English  barons  sided  with  Alexander,  declaring  his  cause 
just,  and  reminding  Henry  of  the  dangers  which  threatened  him 
in  Wales  and  France.  Both  parties  finally  agreed  to  remain  at 
peace  till  an  equitable  settlement  could  be  reached  In  the 
interim  John  "the  Scot,"  earl  of  Chester,  Lincoln,  and  Hunting- 
don, died.  The  king  of  Scotland  received  seizin  of  the  honor 
of  Huntingdon,  and  other  lands,  which  John  had  held  of  him  as 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1154,  1181,  1265-6;  cf.  No.  1277;  Early  Kings,  II, 
pp.  30-1,  418,  420;  Foedera  (Record  Ed.),  I,  Pt.  I,  pp.  214,  215,  233;    Pt.  II,  p.  932. 


120  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

tenant-i?i-capite — four    manors  being    excepted,   which  the    earl 
held  directly  of  the  king  of  England.1 

On  the    13th   of  August,  1237,   Henry  wrote   to   the   arch- 
bishop of  York  that  he  was  coming  to  treat  of  peace  with  Alex- 
ander, but  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  go  as  far 
Sett  ement  of    as    T3urjiani)  on    acc0unt  of    the    legate,  whom   he 

C1  .  wished    to    be    present    at    the    conference.       Nor 

indeed  could  Durham  "hold  such  a  multitude  of 
people,  nor  would  they  find  victuals."  The  archbishop  and 
others  were  to  meet  the  king  of  Scots  as  usual  and  conduct  him 
to  York.  Here,  on  September  25,  an  agreement  was  reached 
between  Henry,  king  of  England,  and  Alexander,  king  of  Scot- 
land, "respecting  all  claims  made  by,  or  competent  to,  the 
latter,  up  to  Friday  next  before  Michaelmas  A.  D.  1237."  This 
agreement,  ratified  in  the  most  solemn  manner  by  the  barons 
and  clergy  of  England  and  Scotland,  is  as  follows : 

The  K.  of  Scotland  quitclaims  to  the  K.  of  England,  his  hereditary 
rights  to  the  counties  of  Northumberland,  Cumberland,  and  Westmore- 
land, forever;  also  15,000  marks  of  silver  paid  by  his  late  father  K.  Wil- 
liam to  John  K.  of  England,  for  certain  conventions,  not  observed  by 
the  latter ;  also  frees  him  of  the  agreements  between  the  said  K.  John 
and  K.  William,  respecting  the  marriages  to  be  made  between  the  said 
K.  Henry  or  Richard  his  brother,  and  Margaret  or  Isabella,  sisters  of 
the  said  Alexander ;  and  likewise  of  the  agreements  between  the  said 
K.  Henry  and  Alexander  regarding  the  marriage  to  be  contracted 
between  the  said  Henry,  and  Marjory  sister  of  said  Alexander. 
Henry  on  the  other  hand  grants  to  Alexander  200  librates  of  land 
within  Northumberland  and  Cumberland,  if  they  can  be  found  outside 
vills,  where  castles  are  placed,  or  in  other  competent  places  adjacent 
to  these  counties ;  to  be  held  by  Alexander  and  his  successors  kings 
of  Scotland,  for  the  yearly  reddendo  of  a  'soar'  [one  year  old] 
hawk  at  Carlisle  by  the  hands  of  the  Constable  for  the  time  of  the 
castle,  at  the  feast  of  the  Assumption  of  the  Blessed  Mary,  for  all 
demands.  The  kings  of  Scotland  to  hold  the  lands  with  sok  and  sak, 
tholl  and  theam,  infangenethef,  utfangenethef,  hamsokne,  grithbrech, 
blothwyt,  fyghtwyt,  ferdwyt,  hongwyt',  leyrwyt',  flemensefrith',  murder 

1  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  Ill,  pp.  372,  394,  413  ;  Bain,  I,  Nos.  1325-9,  1333. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  II  121 

and  larceny,  forstall',  within  time  and  without,  everywhere.  He  and  his 
heirs,  and  their  men  of  said  lands,  are  to  be  free  of  all  scot,  geld,  aids 
of  sheriffs,  and  their  servants,  hidage,  carucage,  danegeld,  horngeld, 
hostings,  wapentakes,  scutages,  lestages,  stallages,  shires,  hundreds, 
wards,  warthpeny,  averpeny,  hundredespenny,  borgalpeny,  tething  peny; 
and  of  all  works  of  castles,  bridges,  park  enclosings,  and  all  '  kareio, 
summagio,  navigio,  building  of  palaces,  etc.  They  shall  have  all  '  wayf  ' 
animals  found  on  their  lands,  unless  the  owner  follows  and  proves  his 
property.  All  pleas  hereafter  arising,  and  wont  to  be  held  before  the 
Justices  in  banco,  or  before  the  K.  himself  on  his  Eyre,  shall  hereafter 
be  pled  in  the  K.  of  Scotland's  court  within  said  lands,  and  be  deter- 
mined by  his  bailiffs,  by  the  return  of  the  K.  of  England's  writ,  deliv- 
ered by  his  sheriffs  to  said  bailiffs,  if  such  pleas  can  be  held  and  deter- 
mined by  the  law  of  England.  Pleas  not  determinable  before  the  said 
bailiffs,  shall  be  held  and  determined  before  the  K.  of  England's  Justices 
errant,  at  their  first  assize  within  the  county  where  the  lands  lie,  before 
any  other  pleas  are  held,  as  shall  be  just,  the  Steward  of  the  K.  of  Scot- 
land being  present  and  sitting  as  a  Justice.  The  bailiffs  or  men  of  the 
K.  of  Scotland,  shall  not  go  out  of  said  counties  where  the  lands  lie  for 
any  summons  or  plea.  Should  any  of  the  land  assigned  be  within  a 
forest,  no  forester  of  the  K.  of  England  shall  enter  to  eat,  or  house 
himself,  or  exact  anything,  except  for  attachments  of  pleas  of  the  forest, 
and  by  view  of  the  K.  of  Scotland's  bailiff  if  required.  Pleas  of  the 
Crown  arising  in  the  lands,  shall  be  attached  by  the  bailiffs  and  cor- 
oners of  the  K.  of  England,  in  the  presence  (if  desired)  of  fhe  K.  of 
Scotland's  bailiff,  and  shall  be  determined  by  the  said  Justices  errant 
and  the  foresaid  steward,  at  the  first  assize  as  aforesaid.  In  other  pleas, 
justice  shall  be  done,  after  trial,  on  any  man  of  the  said  lands,  by  the 
bailiffs  of  the  K.  of  Scotland  ;  the  said  K.  not  having  power  to  remit 
any  punishment  according  to  law,  nor  to  restore  to  the  heirs  of  crim- 
inals, land  lost  by  felony,  nor  to  remit  amercements  for  forfeiture. 
All  other  amercements  and  escheats  of  said  lands,  and  all  other  issues 
arising  therefrom,  shall  remain  to  the  K.  of  Scotland  and  his  heirs ; 
and  should  he  or  they  be  ever  impleaded  for  the  lands,  the  K.  of 
Engand  shall  warrant  and  defend  them.  The  K.  of  Scotland  is  not  to 
appear,  or  answer  for  such  suit  to  anyone,  in  an  English  court  of  law. 
The  Scottish  K.  makes  his  homage  and  fealty — de  praedictis  terris. 
All  writings  on  the  above  matters  between  the  late  or  present  Kings 
of  England  and  Scotland,  to  be  severally  restored;  but   any  clauses 


1 2 2  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELA TIONS 

in  them  not  touching  the  same,  but  for  the  good  of  either  kingdom, 
are  to  be  renewed ;  and  any  charters  found  regarding  the  said  counties 
are  to  be  restored  to  the  K.  of  England.1 

As  a  result  of  this  convention,  Henry  directed  his  agents  at 
Bamburgh  and  Newcastle-on-Tyne  to  spend  as  little  as  possible 
on  fortifications,  "  as  a  firm  peace  has  been  entered  upon  .  .  .  . , 
so  that  now  the  king  is  not  in  fear  of  his  castles  as  before."  The 
justiciar  of  Ireland  is  also  to  allow  all  the  Scottish  merchants 
to  come  and  trade  in  Ireland  freely.  A  writ  was  soon  issued 
ordering  certain  men  of  England  to  meet  the  " estimator -es"  of 
the  king  of  Scots  at  Carlisle,  "there  to  swear  that  they  will 
faithfully  value  the  200  librates  of  land  to  be  assigned  to  Alex- 
ander] K.  of  Scots."  But  it  was  difficult  to  reach  an  agreement, 
Henry  naturally  wishing  to  give  as  little  as  possible,  and  Alex- 
ander insisting  on  a  complete  fulfilment  of  the  treaty.  There 
are  numerous  entries  on  the  subject.  In  November,  1240,  Henry 
instructs  the  "custos  "  of  the  bishopric  of  Durham,  "■  out  of  the 
issues  of  the  same,"  to  cause  the  king  of  Scotland  to  have  400L, 
"in  recompence  of  the  arrears  of  land  which  the  K.  is  bound 
to  assign,  but  has  not  yet  assigned  to  him."  On  the  16  of 
February,  1241,  the  king  empowers  the  bishop  of  Durham  to 
assign  Alexander  lands  in  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  and  North- 
umberland, to  the  amount  of  "  200I.  librates  of  land."  On  the 
20th  Henry  commands  him,  "  if  the  K.  of  Scots  is  unwilling 
to  receive  the  200I.  librates  of  land  to  be  assigned  by  the 
bishop,  to  assign  him  lands  or  liberties  to  the  additional  amount 
of  20  librates,  unless  by  chance  he  is  content  with  the  less 
amount.     Gives  the  Bishop  full   powers."     In  April,  1242,  the 

1  The  papal  legate  proposed  to  enter  Scotland  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty. 
Alexander  replied  that  neither  in  his  time  nor  in  those  of  this  antecessors  had  any 
legate  (for  England)  had  such  entrance,  nor  would  he  tolerate  it  now.  Odo,  therefore, 
returned  to  the  south  with  Henry.  In  this  connection  Innocent  IV  decreed  that 
ecclesiastical  causes  arising  within  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  "  shall  not  be  tried  by 
the  Legates  out  of  its  bounds.  But  should  the  Roman  See  for  any  lawful  reason  ordain 
that  such  should  be  tried  out  of  Scotland,  they  are  not  to  be  tried  in  the  city  or  diocese 
of  York,  but  only  in  Carlisle  or  Durham,  as  being  nearer  Scotland."  (Mt.  Paris, 
Chron.  Maj.,  Ill,  p.  414  ;  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1349,  1358,  1675;  Foedera,  I, 
P-  376.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  II  123 

claims  which  the  Scottish  kings  had  steadily  maintained  as  their 
right  and  inheritance  were  conceded  and  settled  by  a  grant  to 
Alexander  of  "  the  manors  of  Langwadeby,  Saleghild,  Scottheby, 
Scoureby,  Carlanton,  and  sixty  librates  of  land  to  be  extended 
and  assigned  to  him  in  the  K.'s  manor  of  Penrith,  with  all  their 
liberties  and  free  customs."  A  writ  was  also  issued  for  payment 
to  Alexander  "of  300I.  for  his  arrears  of  200  librates  of  land 
which  the  king  ought  to  have  assigned  to  him." * 

Soon  after  the  conference  at  York,  Alexander's,  wife  Joanna, 
died,  leaving  him  without  heirs.  Two  years  later  he  married 
Marry  de  Coucy,  daughter  of  a  great  French  baron,  and  in  1241 
Alexander  III  was  born  —  the  last  direct  male  heir  to  the  throne 
of  Scotland  by  the  conjoined  lines  of  MacAlpin  and  Cerdic.2 

In  1242  Henry  was  drawn  into  war  with  Louis  IX  of  France, 
through  the  influence  of  his  Poitevin  advisers.  Before  under- 
taking it  he  tightened  the  bonds  uniting  himself  and  the  king  of 
Scots,  by  making  a  complete  settlement  of  the  claims  adjusted 
at  York,  and  by  betrothing  his  daughter  Margaret  to  the  infant 
heir  of  Alexander.  The  custody  of  the  English  marches  was 
also    entrusted    to    the    king    of   the    Scots.     During    Henry's 

absence,  an  event  occurred  which  came  near  inter- 
Wctlter  Bisset 

rupting  the  peaceful  relations  between  the  kingdoms 

of  England  and  Scotland.     Walter  Bisset,  a  powerful  baron  of 

Norman  descent,  was  banished  from  Scotland  for  an  atrocious 

murder.     Repairing  to  Henry's  court,  he  declared  he  was  the 

victim  of  a  faction  over  which  Alexander  had  no  control,  and 

artfully  insinuated  that  the  latter  had  no  right  to  deprive  him  of 

his  lands  in  Scotland  without  Henry's  consent.     He  alleged  also 

that  the  king  of  Scotland,  in  violation  of  his  fealty,  had  received 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1362-4,  1440,  1442,  1506,  1512,  1570-3,  1575-7,  1612. 
aMt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  Ill,  pp.  479,  530;  Fordun,  An.,  §44;  Bain,  I,  Nos. 
1405-7;  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  33,  note.  Henry  writes  Alexander  that  "although  the 
business  between  him  and  the  sister  of  the  Queen  of  the  K.  (sic)  [of  England  ?] 
cannot  attain  the  effect  wished,  yet  he  desires  that  so  great  a  league  may  unite  and 
conjoin  them,  that  in  all  their  doings  they  may  be  mutually  stronger."  (Bain,  I, 
No.  1444.)  Henry  married  Alienora,  daughter  of  Raymond  Berenger  IV,  count  of 
Provence,  in  January,  1236.  (Cf.  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.) 


124  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

in  his  land  Geoffrey  de  Marisco,  a  fugitive  from  justice. 
Alexander  had  given  no  ground  for  complaint,  but  his  marriage 
with  Mary  de  Coucy,  a  French  woman,  and  therefore  supposedly 
hostile  to  English  interests,  had  occasioned  a  certain  coolness  of 
feeling  between  the  kings,  which  now  culminated.  Henry  had 
returned  from  Poitou  in  disgrace,  and  his  weak  nature  was 
peculiarly  open  to  Bisset's  insinuations.  He  secretly  secured  aid 
from  his  wife's  uncle,  the  count  of  Flanders.  He  also 
commanded  the  Irish  king,  Dovenald,  to  join  the  justiciar  of 
Ireland — "who  is  shortly  to  set  out  for  Scotland  with  the  K.'s 
Irish  lieges" — in  person,  with  such  force  as  he  could  bring. 
Similar  writs  were  sent  to  twenty  of  the  Irish  chieftains.  His 
attitude  to  Ireland  and  Wales  shows  they  occupied  a  position 
radically  different  from  that  of  Scotland — including  both 
Lothian  and  Galloway — the  latter  being  clearly  independent. 
In  the  summer  of  1244  Henry  concentrated  his  entire 
military  force  on  Newcastle-on-Tyne.  Alexander's  father-in- 
law,  Engelram,  had  recently  died,  and  the  troops  sent  by  his  son 
were  intercepted  by  the  English.  But  in  his  subjects  the  king 
of  Scotland  found  a  bulwark  of  strength.  A  thousand  knights 
and  about  100,000  infantry  gathered  about  the  king,  prepared  to 
die  for  their  country's  just  cause?  Alexander  had  anticipated 
Henry's  attack  by  establishing  himself  in  a  fortified  camp  at 
Ponteland,  a  little  north  of  Newcastle,  where  he  could  observe 
the  movements  of  his  antagonist.  But  the  barons  of  England 
who  were  so  closely  bound  to  both  kingdoms,  were  little  inclined 
to  war.  They  had  a  warm  regard  for  the  king  of  Scotland,  and 
his  resolute  bearing  warned  them  of  a  dangerous  and  doubtful 
conflict.  They  were  indignant  at  sight  of  the  contemptible 
contingent  from  Flanders.  The  national  spirit  resented  John's 
policy  of  reliance  on  foreigners.  An  attitude  of  peace  was  the 
normal  condition  of  feeling  toward  Scotland  at  this  time. 
Negotiations  were,  therefore,  easily  set  on  foot.  Paris  describes 
Alexander  as  "vir  bonus,  Justus,  pius,  dapsilis,  ab  omnibus  tarn 

1  This  from  an  English  chronicler,  Mt.  Paris.     He  is  the  best  representative  of 
the  growing  national  spirit. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  II  125 

Anglis  quam  suis  diligabatur,  et  merito."  It  is  easy  to  infer  on 
which  side  justice  lay.  Henry's  charges  against  Alexander  were 
that  some  of  his  nobles  had  built  two  castles  in  Galloway  and 
Lothian,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  English  crown  and  the  security 
of  English  lieges  on  the  borders ;  that  by  sheltering  Geoffrey  de 
Marisco  and  other  fugitives,  he  had  shown  an  intention  of  with- 
drawing his  homage  and  allying  with  France.  The  charters 
which  were  mutually  exchanged  indicate  that  Henry  received  no 
satisfaction  except  on  the  subject  of  the  foreign  alliance,  which 
was  undoubtedly  the  real  point  at  issue.1  Alexander  bound 
himself  and  his  heirs  to  keep  the  peace  to  his  "liege  lord," 
Henry  III  and  his  heirs;  he  would  enter  into  no  treaty  of  war 
against  the  dominions  of  the  English  king,  unless  in  requital  of 
injuries.  The  conventions  lately  entered  into  at  York,  as  well 
as  those  regarding  the  intended  marriage  between  Alexander's 
son  and  Henry's  daughter,  were  confirmed.  As  one  of  the 
disputed  castles,  the  Hermitage,  in  Liddesdale,  remained 
standing,  and  no  mention  is  made  regarding  the  delivery  of 
fugutives,  these  points  were  apparently  quietly  dropped  by 
Henry's  representatives  as  beyond  his  jurisdiction.  Alexander's 
rights  having  in  turn  been  guaranteed  against  aggression,  the 
two  armies  retired  from  the  frontier,  the  fortified  camp  at  Pon- 
teland  was  given  up,  and  the  kingdoms  were  again  at  peace.2 

During  Alexander's  reign  the  records  of  the  English  court 

portray  afresh  the  anomalous  condition  of  the  king  of  Scots  and 

those   of  his   nobles  who  held  fiefs  south   of    the 

Tweed     and     Solway  —  at    once     dependent     and 

Alexander's 

P  •  independent.     Where  a  conflict  of  service  arose,  the 

Scottish    vassals    seem    invariably    to    have    been 

excused  from  service  for  their  English  fiefs,  that  they  might  first 

1 A  writ  of  April  20,  1244,  commands  the  sheriffs  of  the  northern  counties  "to 
make  close  search  if  any  one  from  beyond  seas,  knight,  merchant  or  other  stranger, 
passes  to  Scotland,  or  any  one  from  Scotland  to  parts  beyond  seas ;  and  to  arrest  any 
such  person  bearing  arms,  or  letters  of  a  suspicious  nature,  and  send  him  to  the  K." 
(Bain,  I,  No.  1631.) 

aMt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  IV,  pp.  200,  359,  361,  379;  Bain,  I,  Nos.  1637,  1703, 
1836,  1865,  1640-6,  1648,  1654-5,  1650;  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  38,  40,  42;  Foedera,  I, 
p.  429;  II,  p.  216. 


126  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

serve  their  king.  If  war  arose  between  the  kingdoms  their 
fiefs,  forfeited  by  supporting  their  primary  lord,  the  king  of 
Scotland,  were  usually  restored  on  the  return  of  peace.  The 
invasion  of  the  fealty  of  subjects  on  either  side  is  carefully 
guarded  against.  Gifts  of  money  are  not  to  be  wrongfully 
construed.     The  king  of  England 

....  declares  that  the  aid  of  2000  marks  which  Alexander]  K.  of 
Scotland  has  made  at  his  instance  against  his  transfretation  this  year* 
proceeds  entirely  from  that  K.'s  liberality;  and  that  this  present,  thus 
freely  made,  is  not  to  be  hereafter  drawn  maliciously  by  any  into  a 
precedent.1 

There  is  a  noticeable  tendency  on  the  part  of  border  barons 
to  have  their  charters  for  possessions  near  the  line  confirmed  by 
both  kings,  especially  in  case  of  a  transfer  of  property.2 

The  K.  (Henry)  ratifies  the  lease  (ballium)  and  grant  made  by 
Robert  de  Muschans  to  Boidin  de  Argu  of  his  manor  of  Chevelinge- 
ham  [Chillingham  in  Northumberland],  to  be  held  till  the  said  Robert 
shall  cause  Boydyn  to  have  seizin  of  a  carucate  and  a  half  of  land, 
three  oxgangs  and  6  acres  of  meadow,  and  a  mill  in  Halsinton,  con- 
firmed by  Robert  to  Boydyn  by  charter,  in  the  said  manor  in 
Scotland. 

An  interesting  glimpse  of  the  method  of  holding  parliaments 
at  this  early  period  is  revealed  in  the  order  of  the  king  of  Eng- 
land to  let  the  nuns  of  Newcastle-on-Tyne  have  thirty  quarters 
of  wheat  "for  the  damages  sustained  by  them  in  their  crops 
trodden  down  (conculcatis)  by  the  Parliament  lately  held  out- 
side of  said  town."  Seventeen  parties  in  Northumberland  are 
similarly  remunerated  for  losses  to  their  crops  on  account  of  the 
parliament  between  the  kings  of  England  and  Scotland. 

One  of  the  most  important  features  of  this  reign  is  the 
development  of  "March  law" — and  an  attempt  to  fix  the  line 
between  the  two  kingdoms.     In   1222,  at  a    meeting   of    duly 

1  The  apparent  ease  with  which  Alexander  obtained  money,  and  the  poverty  of 
Henry  throughout  his  reign,  are  in  striking  contrast. 

*Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  693,  818,  822,  970,  1041,  1241,  1295,  895,  909,  914, 
1066,  1086,  1096,  1105,  HOI,  1128,  1113,  832,  1676,  1699,  1749,  1765,  1776. 


THE  REIGN  OE  ALEXANDER  II  127 

appointed  knights  of  Northumberland  and  Scotland,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  get  "a  true  perambulation  between  the  kingdoms, 
viz.,  between  Karham  and  Hawedene."  The  six  English 
knights,  as  jurors,  "with  one  assent  proceeded  by  the  right  and 
ancient  marches  between  the  kingdoms,"  declaring  on  oath  that 
they  were  "from  Tweed,  by  the  rivulet  of  Revedenburne, 
ascending  toward  the  south  as  far  as  'Tres  Karras,'  and  from 
thence  in  a  straight  line  ascending  as  far  as  Hoperichelawe, 
and  from  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  Witelawe."  The  Scotch 
knights  totally  dissented  from  this  view  and  threatened  to  pre- 
vent such  perambulation  by  force.  Twenty-three  years  later  the 
matter  again  came  up,  the  purpose  being  to  make  settlement  of 
"the  lands  in  dispute  between  the  Canons  of  Karham  in  Eng- 
land, and  Bernard  de  Haudene  in  Scotland."1  The  line  formerly 
declared  to  be  the  true  one  was  agreed  on  in  the  presence  of 
several  English  justices,  the  justiciar  of  Lothian,  the  sheriff  of 
Roxburgh,  and  others  representing  both  sides  in  the  case.  In 
1248  a  restatement  of  the  March  law  was  made.  The  king  of 
England,  having  heard  from  the  envoys  of  the  king  of  Scotland 
"that  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  Marches  of  the  Kingdoms  in 
the  time  of  their  predecessors,  Kings  of  England  and  Scotland, 
hitherto  used,  were  now  less  well  observed,"  and  that  "  injury 
had  been  done  to  Nicholas  de  Sules  against  said  laws,"  ordered 
the  sheriff  of  Northumberland  "to  cause  the  same  to  be  inviola- 
bly kept,  and  to  give  redress  to  said  Nicholas  if  found  due." 
Certain  knights  of  England  and  Scotland,  having  assembled 
at  the  March  on  Tweed  under  the  precepts  of  their  respective 
kings 

....  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  offences  against  said  march  laws 
and  customs,  did  duly  correct,  according  to  the  ancient  and  approved 
custom  of  the  March,  such  matters  as  required  redress.  And  it  was 
proponed  on  the  part  of  the  K.  of  Scotland  that  Nicholas  de  Soules 
had  been  injured  by  being  impleaded  before  the  K.  of  England  for 
transgressions  by  his  men  of  Scotland  dwelling  in  Scotland,  per- 
petrated in  England.      The  said  knights,  having  carefully  inquired 

'Bain,  No.  832. 


128  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

into  the  matter  by  the  elder  and  more  discreet  persons  on  both  sides 
of  the  March,  according  to  ancient  march  law  and  custom,  say  that 
the  said  Nicholas  has  been  injured  by  being  so  impleaded  elsewhere 
than  at  the  march,  although  he  holds  land  in  England ;  for  no  one 
of  either  kingdom,  although  holding  lands  in  both,  is  liable  by  March 
law,  to  be  impleaded  anywhere  but  at  the  march,  for  any  deed  by 
his  men  dwelling  in  England,  done  in  Scotland;  or  for  any  deed 
by  his  men  dwelling  in  Scotland,  done  in  England. 

This  statement  makes  it  very  clear  that  the  same  rules 
applied  with  equal  force  to  the  subjects  of  both  kingdoms ;  that 
the  holding  of  lands  in  England  was  the  sole  ground  for  submitting 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  English  courts ;  and  that  even  under  such 
circumstances  the  case  in  question  must  be  tried  at  the  March.  It 
well  illustrates  the  proposition  already  set  forth  that  the  king- 
dom of  Scotland  was  independent,  and  that  any  appearances  to 
the  contrary  were  occasioned  by  the  peculiar  relations  which  the 
king  of  the  north,  and  a  considerable  number  of  his  subjects, 
sustained  to  the  lord  of  their  English  fiefs. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    REIGN    OF    ALEXANDER    III. 

Five  days  after  the  death  of  Alexander  II  his  son  was 
crowned    at    Scone.     There  were   some   who   opposed,  on  the 

ground  that  the  day  was  unlucky,  and  that  the  boy 
exan  er      ,    o£   e£g.jlt    vears   hacj    not    yet   been   knighted  —  an 

honor,  the  conferring  of  which  Alan  Durward,  the 
justiciar  of  Scotland,  coveted  for  himself.  But  Walter  Comyn, 
earl  of  Menteith,  a  man  of  foresight  and  power,  and  a  loyal 
friend  of  the  deceased  king,  urged  that  delay  was  fatal,  that 
knighthood  was  not  a  prerequisite  to  kingship,  and  that  the 
interests  of  Scotland  demanded  an  immediate  coronation.  His 
arguments  prevailed,  and  the  consecration  of  the  king  ensued 
upon  the  ancient  Stone  of  Destiny.  The  coronation  ceremonies 
revealed  the  leaders  of  the  two  parties,  whose  strife  and  dissen- 
sion made  it  possible  for  the  king  of  England  to  intervene  in 
Scotland  as  "Principal  Adviser"  to  the  child  husband  of  his 
daughter.  Walter  Comyn,  whose  family  was  said  to  include  at 
that  time  "  two  earls  and  upwards  of  thirty  knights,"  headed  the 
national  or  Scottish  party.  The  southern  barons,  whose  leaning 
toward  England  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  were  led  by  Alan 
Durward,  the  justiciar,  Bruce,  lord  of  Annandale,  the  steward, 
and  others.  Menteith's  promptness  foiled  Henry's  purpose  to 
prevent  the  crowning  of  Alexander  without  his  consent,  while 
the  pope  administered  a  merited  rebuke  for  his  efforts  to  have 
the  coronation  set  aside,  and  for  seeking  tithes  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical revenues  of  Scotland,  in  addition  to  those  of  England  and 
Ireland,  for  a  crusade.1 

'Fordun,  §§47-8;  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  53  ff.;  Bain,  I,  Nos.  1798,  1806,  2014. 
Innocent  IV,  to  the  king  of  England  :  "  In  reply  to  his  request,  that  the  K.  of  Scot- 
land, since  he  is  his  liegeman  and   does  homage  to  him,  may  not  be  anointed  or 

129 


1/ 


130  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

As  the  summer   of   1251   began   to   wane,  preparations  were 
made  for  the  marriage  of  Alexander  and  Margaret,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  agreements  previously  made.     Every- 
Alexander  thing   was    on   the   most   sumptuous    scale.     Writs 

were  issued  for  5,000  hens,  1,500  partridges,  with 
Dauehter  cranes,  swans,  peacocks,  pheasants,  hares,  rabbits, 

swine,  and  salmon,  in  proportion.  Five  hundred 
bucks  and  does,  well  salted,  were  to  be  at  York  against  the  mar- 
riage at  Christmas,  and  132  casks  of  wine.  Rich  presents  of 
jewels,  gold,  and  silver,  are  daily  recorded  as  in  making;  beauti- 
ful robes  in  abundance,  among  others  one  for  the  king,  of  the 
best  violet  samnite,  "with  three  small  leopards  on  the  front,  and 
three  others  behind."  A  fair  sword,  and  silver-gilt  spurs,  "with 
silken  ligaments,  becomingly  and  ornately  made,"  were  to  be 
ready  for  the  knighting  of  the  heir  to  the  throne  of  Scotland. 
When  this  ceremony  and  the  marriage  rites  had  been  performed, 
Alexander  rendered  homage  to  Henry  in  the  usual  way,  and 
received  investment  of  his  fiefs  in  England.  Matthew  Paris 
says  the  homage  was  "ratione  tenementi,  quod  tenet  de  domino 
rege  Anglorum,  de  regno  scilicet  Angliae,  Laudiano  videlicet 
et  terris  reliquis."  When  Henry  urged  homage  for  the  kingdom 
of  Scotland  as  well,  Alexander  replied  that  he  had  come  thither 
at  the  request  of  the  king  on  a  peaceful  and  honorable  mission, 
viz.,  that  they  might  be  allied  by  marriage,  and  not  to  treat  of 
arduous  matters  of  state  —  in  which  he  would  require  the  advice 
of  his  council.  Henry,  perhaps  ashamed  of  his  attempt  to  take 
advantage  of  a  child,  ceased  to  urge  the  matter.  The  Earl 
Marshall  was  also  forbidden  to  press  his  claims  to  the  palfrey 
of  the  king  of  Scotland.1 

This  narrative  is  specially  significant  because  it  comes  from 
a  monk  of  St.  Albans,  whose  chroniclers  strenuously  uphold  the 

crowned,  without  his  consent,  the  K.  is  not  to  wonder  if  the  Apostolic  See,  which  is 
unaccustomed  to  such  demands,  does  not  grant  it,  as  greatly  lessening  the  [Scottish] 
K.'s  dignity.  The  K.  also  is  not  to  be  disturbed  at  the  Pope  refusing  to  grant  him  the 
tithe  of  ecclesiastical  benefices  in  Scotland  ;  for  it  is  altogether  unheard  of,  that  this 
should  be  given  to  anyone  in  the  kingdom  of  another." 

1  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  V,  p.  266  ;  Bain  I,  No.  1815  ff. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  1 31 

feudal  supremacy  of  England  in  Scotland.  It  shows  how  one 
attempt  against  the  independence  of  the  kingdom  was  frus- 
trated. 

Paris'  statement  that  Lothian  was  among  the  fiefs  for  which 
homage  was  rendered  cannot  be  accepted.  It  seems  to  be  an 
echo  from  Wendover's  fictitious  account  of  the  cession  of  this 
district  to  Kenneth  II  by  Edgar,  in  975.  It  was  claimed  as 
an  English  fief  by  some  of  the  chroniclers,  just  as  the  Scots, 
a  few  years  after  the  capture  of  William  the  Lion,  claimed  that 
his  homage  was  for  Lothian  and  not  for  the  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land. Both  claims  were  equally  false.  Alexander  III  did  not 
do  homage  for  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  by  Paris'  own  testimony. 
This  is  the  really  important  point.  And  if  Lothian  had  been  an 
English  earldom,  as  Palgrave  and  Freeman  state,  on  exactly  the 
same  footing  as  Tynedale,  and  homage  had  been  done  for  it,  as 
Paris  intimates,  it  must  have  been  included,  like  Tynedale,  in  the 
compotus  of  the  lands  of  which  Alexander  received  seizin,  after 
the  homage  at  York.  But  it  is  not  mentioned.  Moreover,  if 
Malcolm  IV  surrendered  Lothian  with  the  northern  counties  to 
Henry  II,  as  the  St.  Albans  chroniclers  state,  how  does  it  now 
appear  as  one  of  the  English  fiefs  held  by  the  Scottish  king  ? 
When  was  it  restored  to  him  ?  In  lieu  of  his  surrender,  Malcolm 
received  the  honor  of  Huntingdon.  And  after  the  Barons'  war 
(12 1 7)  Alexander  II  was  seized  only  of  this  honor  and  the 
lands  connected  with  it  in  nine  counties.  But  these  were  all 
south  of  the  Humber  and  could  not  have  included  Lothian.  A 
little  later  Alexander  II  received  the  grant  in  Cumberland  in 
commutation  of  all  his  claims  on  the  northern  counties.  Lothian 
is  not  included  in  the  grant,  nor  among  the  counties  claimed,  for 
which  the  grant  was  made.  And  yet,  according  to  Paris,  it  is 
among  the  English  lands  which  Alexander  II  held,  for  which 
Alexander  III  did  homage  and  was  given  seizin.  The  utter 
silence  of  the  best  sources  regarding  Lothian,  and  their  explicit 
testimony  regarding  all  the  English  lands  held  by  the  king  of 
Scotland,  expose  the  error  of  Paris  and  the  falsity  of  the  entire 
conception  of  Lothian  as  an  English  earldom  —  in  which,  how- 


132  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

ever,  English  justices  have  no  place,  from  which  the  barons  are 
never  summoned  to  do  the  service  they  render  for  their  speci- 
fied lands  in  Northumberland  and  elsewhere,  and  for  which  the 
sheriffs  make  no  account  at  the  Exchequer,  as  they  always  do 
for  Tynedale  and  other  English  lands  held  by  Scottish  kings 
or  nobles.     It  was  an  integral  part  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.1 

The  question  of  homage  having  been  settled  for  the  time, 
the  king  promised  to  pay  to  Alexander,  within  four  years, 
5,000  marks  of  silver,  as  the  "  maritagium"  of  his  daughter 
Margaret;  he  would  thus  "be  freed  from  said  amount,  as  con- 
tained in  the  writings  between  the  K.  and  Alexander's  father."2 
The  bailiffs  of  the  king  of  Scotland  there  present,  at  his  own 
instance,  then  spontaneously  restored  their  bailiaries  to  him. 
Fearing,  however,  that  such  an  act  done  outside  the  kingdom  of 
Scotland  might  be  wrongly  construed,  they  required  and  received 
from  the  king  of  England  letters  under  his  seal,  that  "no  prej- 
udice to  the  K.  and  kingdom  of  Scotland"  should  hereafter 
arise  because  of  their  act. 

For  some  years  after  Alexander's  return  to  the  north,  Henry's 

troubles  in  Gascony,  and  with  his  refractory  nobles  in  England, 

did  not  permit  of  interference  in  the  kingdom  of 
Returns  to  r  ° 

Scotland  Scotland.      He    also   wished    to    establish    his    son 

Edmund  as  king  of  Sicily,  with  papal  sanction. 
Alexander  IV,  seeking  an  ally  in  the  king  of  England  against 
the  Emperor  Frederic,  had  granted  to  Henry  what  Innocent 
had  stigmatized  as  "an  unprecedented  request"  —  a  twentieth  of 
the  revenues  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Henry  declared,  how- 
ever, by  writ,  "that  no  prejudice  shall  hereafter  arise  to 
Alexander],  K.  of  Scotland,  or  his  heirs  by  reason  of  the  grant 
by  the  pope  to  the  English  K.  of  the  twentieth  of  ecclesiastical 
benefices  in  Scotland  in  aid  of  the  Holy  Land,  for  three  years.' 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1790,  1799,  1855,  1857. 

2 Henry  was  always  embarrassed  financially.  He  complains  of  being  at  "intoler- 
able expense."  A  payment  of  500  marks  "  drained  "  the  Exchequer.  In  1270  he  still 
owed  2,000  marks.  (Bain,  I,  Nos.  1848,  185 1,  2295,  2589.  Cf.  also  Fordun,  An.,  §50  ; 
Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  An.  1252.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  133 

The  attitude  of  the  pope  is  well  shown  in  letters  to  Rostannus, 
his  chaplain  and  envoy  in  England : 

Desires  him  to  enjoin  the  prelates  and  other  dignified  clergy  of 
Scotland  to  afford  liberal  aid  to  the  Pope  to  defray  his  debts  incurred 
in  the  affairs  of  Sicily  ;  in  which  case  his  Holiness  will  remit  the  papal 
twentieth  granted  to  the  K.  of  England  in  aid  of  the  Holy  Land.  If 
they  do  not,  he  is  to  collect  the  twentieth  without  delay.  If  he  has  to 
take  proceedings,  he  is  to  keep  silence  as  to  any  privileges  or  indul- 
gences to  the  Scottish  Church,  or  the  question  of  its  independence. 

And  under  the  same  date  (1250), 

Though  the  Pope  has  remitted  to  the  prelates  the  twentieth  of 
ecclesiastical  benefices  in  Scotland,  granted  to  the  K.  of  England,  yet 
the  redemptions  of  vows  of  crusaders,  uncertain  bequests,  and  offerings 
arising  from  whatever  cause,  in  aid  of  the  Holy  Land,  should  be 
collected  for  the  said  K.'s  use.  He  accordingly  commands  his  envoy 
to  collect  the  same,  under  the  above  reservations  as  to  secrecy.1 

Since  the  meeting  at  York,  the  Scottish  national  party,  headed 

by  Walter  Comyn,  earl  of  Menteith,  had  been  in  control  in  Scot- 

_    „     .  land.       Alan   Durward   represented  the   faction  of 

Parties  in  •  ■■«•«*.«. 

Scotland  nobles  who,  though  holding  fiefs  in  both  kingdoms, 

and  primarily  subjects  of  the  king  of  Scotland,  were 
yet  of  southern  blood,  and  favored  Henry's  interests.  Yet  both 
parties,  in  their  fiercest  strife,  resented  any  encroachment  on 
their  rights,  and  Henry's  interference  in  Scotland  was  tolerated 
only  on  his  repeated  assurances,  in  writing,  that  he  meditated  no 
harm  against  the  liberties  of  the  kingdom,  seeking  only  the 
interests  of  his  son-in-law  and  daughter,  till  they  should  attain 
their  majority. 

A  variety  of  events,  ending  in  a  skilfully  laid  plot,  gave  the 
English  party  possession  of  the  young  king  and  queen  of  Scot- 
land, and  the  national  party  was  defied  to  attack  the  castle  of 
Roxburgh  while  it  contained  their  sovereign  lord.  Henry  sum- 
moned his  barons  and  advanced  towards  the  north.  As  he 
approached  the  borders,  he  wrote: 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1956,  1984-5,  2040,  2065-6  ;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj., 
An.  1255. 


134  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

The  K.  understanding  that  some  fear  he  proposes  to  weaken  the 
state  of  Scotland  or  its  liberties,  whereas  he  is  under  many  bonds  to 
maintain  the  K.  of  Scotland's  honor,  and  the  liberties  of  his  kingdom 
unhurt,  declares  that  nothing  was  done  on  the  occasion  of  the  marriage 
of  Alexander  and  his  daughter  Margaret  at  York,  concerning  the  state 
of  his  councillors  and  their  bailliaries,  calculated  to  injure  his  king- 
dom or  its  liberties.  As  he  is  about  to  approach  the  Scottish  borders 
to  see  the  said  K.  and  his  daughter,  "  according  to  the  great  desire  of 
his  heart,"  he  will  neither  do,  nor  permit  others  to  do,  anything  prej- 
udicial to  said  K.  or  his  kingdom,  but  rather,  as  bound  by  the  link 
of  paternal  affection,  give  all  his  power  and  influence,  if  need  be,  to 
preserve  the  same. 

Safe-conducts  were  issued  for  the  king  and  queen  of  Scotland 
to  meet  their  parents  at  Werk  castle,  on  the  border.  But  before 
their  departure  was  permitted,  the  distinguished  delegation  of 
English  nobles,  who  had  come  as  their  escort,  was  compelled 
to 

....  guarantee  that  neither  the  K.  or  Queen,  or  any  of  their  fol- 
lowers, shall  tarry  in  England,  save  with  consent  of  all  the  magnates  of 
Scotland,  and  that  they  will  permit  nothing  to  be  done  in  prejudice  of 
the  Scottish  king  or  his  kingdom  or  its  liberties. 

A  similar  document  from  the  king  of  England  confirmed  the 
pledge  of  the  nobles.  At  the  instance  of  his  father-in-law  and 
"the  council  of  his  own  magnates,"  as  now  constituted,  the  king 
of  Scotland  removed  the  former  regents  from  his  council,  and 
made  entirely  new  appointments.  In  the  event  of  a  foreign 
invasion  they  were  to  be  restored  to  favor.  The  provisions 
agreed  upon  at  this  meeting  were  embodied  in  letters,  which 
were  to  remain  in  force  till  the  king  of  Scotland  attained  his 
majority,  the  king  of  England  promising  that  on  the  expiration 
of  the  term  specified  "no  prejudice  should  arise  to  him  or  his 
kingdom  thereby."  Thus  the  English  party  in  Scotland  reached 
the  height  of  its  power.  But  it  by  no  means  voiced  the  national 
sentiment,  represented  by  Menteith  and  the  bishops  of  St. 
Andrews  and  Glasgow,  who  "incurred  the  vehement  displeasure 
of  Henry  for  openly  refusing  to  affix  their  seals  to  a  document 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  135 

which  they  stigmatized  as  infamous."     They  were  to  triumph  in 
the  end.1 

The  new  regents  initiated  their  reign  by  calling  their  prede- 
cessors to  account.  As  the  defeated  party  absolutely  refused  to 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  their  rivals,  the  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land was  filled  with  strife  ;  Gamelin,  bishop-elect  of  St.  Andrews, 
and  chancellor  under  the  first  regents,  especially  suffered. 
Though  at  length  consecrated  to  his  see,  he  gained  little  advan- 
tage from  it,  being  banished  from  the  realm  because  he  refused 
to  yield  to  the  extortionate  demands  of  the  party  in  power. 
The  pope  warmly  espoused  his  cause,  urging  Henry  to  use  his 
influence  to  have  these  wrongs  redressed.  "  He  has  heard  with 
grief  that  some  of  the  K.  of  Scotland's  'so-called'  councillors, 
who  might  rather  be  called  'assentators,'  have  turned  his  tender 
mind  by  crafty  and  evil  advice,  and  that  G[amelin],  bishop  of 
St.  Andrews,  is  spoiled  of  his  goods,  and,  driven  in  exile  from 
his  church,  to  the  no  light  injury  and  contempt  of  the  Holy 
Name,  and  his  apostle."  The  appeal  apparently  brought  no 
immediate  results,  though  it  was  in  time  to  have  an  important 
bearing  on  affairs  in  Scotland.* 

Meanwhile  preparations  were  made  for  the  entertainment  of 
the  king  and  queen  of  Scotland,  on  a  visit  to  their  parents  in 
England.  It  was  to  be  a  purely  social  meeting.  A  safe-conduct 
provided  that  neither  the  king  nor  his  friends  should  "  bespoken 
to  on  any  matters  touching  himself  or  his  kingdom  against  his 
will."  The  sheriff  of  York  was  to  pay  to  Alexander,  from  the 
issues  of  his  county,  "  iool.,  for  the  100s.  which  he  is  wont  to 
draw  daily  from  the  K.  for  his  expenses,  so  often  as  he  comes  to 
England  at  the  K.'s  command."  On  Alexander's  return  to 
Scotland,  an  unexpected  opportunity  presented  itself  to  the 
national  party.  The  pope,  mindful  of  the  interests  of  his  protege 
Gamelin,  directed  the  bishop  of  Dunblane  and  the  abbots  of 
Melrose  and  Jedburgh  to  excommunicate  the  regents,  if  they 

JBain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  1966,  1986,  1988,  1990,  1992,  1995,2002,  2004,  2012, 
2013  ;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  V,  pp.  501,  504,  507,  556.  Cf.  Early  Kings,  II,  pp. 
63,  67,  73- 

*  Bain,  I,  No.  2037. 


I36  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

persisted  in  keeping  him  out  of  his  see  of  St.  Andrews.     The 

national   party  could  now  justify   themselves  in  rescuing  their 

sovereign   from  the   hands  of  excommunicated  traitors,  which 

they  succeeded   in   doing  on  the  night  of    October  28,    1257. 

Efforts  for  a  compromise   had  already  been  set   on   foot ;  the 

national  party  used  their  victory  wisely,  and  after  some  bluster 

on  Henry's  part,  the  strife  of  parties  was  appeased.     A  council 

made   up   of  four   from   either  side,  with  the  queen   mother  of 

Scotland  and  her  husband,  was  agreed  on.     It  included  among 

others  Gamelin,  the  Comyn  earls  of  Menteith  and  Buchan,  and 

Alan  Durward.     It  was  really  a  victory  for  the  Comyn  party,  for 

they    retained    all    the    great    offices    of    state   in   their    hands, 

including  the  justiciarship  of  Lothian.    Henry  gave  his  approval 

to   the   new  arrangements,  promising    his    counsel    and    aid,  if 

required,  so  long  as  affairs  should  be  conducted  "according  to 

God  and  justice,  the  honour  and  advantage  of  the  K.  and  Queen 

of  Scotland,  and  the  old  laws  and  customs  of  that  realm."  ' 

In  the  fall   of   1260  a  number  of  causes  called   the  king  of 

Scotland  to  the  south.    Westminster  says  he  wished  to  look  after 

his    interests    in    the    county    of    Huntingdon,    to 

demand   payment  of  the  balance  of  his  wife's  mar- 
Margaret 

riage  dower,  and  to  claim  certain  lands  between  the 

Tyne  and  Wentsbeck.2     The  queen  also  wished  to  be  with  her 

mother.     Safe-conducts  were  granted  in  August   by  Henry  and 

Prince   Edward,   providing  that   the  king    and   his    councillors 

should  not  be  addressed  on  matters  of  state  without  his  consent. 

No  disturbance  was  to  be  made  by  the  king  of  England  in  the 

state    of  the    king    of    Scotland    or    his    councillors   and   other 

attendants  while  in  England.     Should  he  or  his  queen  or  any  of 

their  retinue  fall  sick,  their  safe  conduct  was  to  remain  in  force 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Introd.,  p.  xlii,  Nos.  2053-6,2062-3,  2083-4,  2090,  2103-4, 
2114,  2121,  2125,  2128,  2131;  Mt.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.,  V,  p.  576;  cf.  Early  Kings,  II, 
pp.  71-3;  also  Bain,  I,  Nos.  2133,  2139-40,  2155-7.  The  earl  of  Menteith  was  killed 
by  a  fall  from  a  horse,  in  November,  1258.  (Cf.  Early  Kings,  II,  p.  80,  and  Mt.  Paris, 
Chron.  Maj.,  V,  pp.  724,  739.) 

2  On  the  border  of  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  and  Northumberland.  (Early 
Kings,  II,  p.  82,  note  ;  Mt.  West.,  II,  p.  388.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  137 

one  month  after  convalescence.  Should  the  queen  become 
pregnant  in  England,  neither  she  nor  her  child,  if  born  there, 
should  be  detained.  Should  either  die,  the  other  was  to  be 
freely  restored  to  Scotland.  Should  the  king,  the  child's  father, 
die  meanwhile,  "or  other  unforeseen  event  occur  to  him,"  the 
leading  men  in  the  Scottish  national  party  were  to  receive  the 
child  and  take  it  to  Scotland.  Alexander  returned  to  the  north 
after  a  time,  granting  the  request  of  the  king  and  queen  of 
England,  that  their  daughter  might  remain  with  them  for  a 
season.  But  so  jealously  did  the  Scots  guard  against  any  mis- 
chance that  they  required  fresh  assurances  from  Henry,  con- 
firmed by  his  brother  Richard,  and  the  magnates  of  his  realm,  of 
his  honorable  intentions.  In  February,  Margaret  gave  birth  to 
a  daughter,  who  received  her  own  name,  and  eventually  became 
the  wife  of  Eric,  king  of  Norway.1 

The  attainment  of  his  majority  released  Alexander  from  the 

control  of  his  regents,  and  left  him  free  to  carry  out  his  father's 

policy  of  annexing  the  western  islands  to  his  own 

-      ,      „.         dominions.    This  he  apparently  attempted  to  accom- 

Reaches  His  ... 

Maiority  plish    by    peaceful    negotiations   with    the  king   of 

Norway,  but  the  continued  attacks  of  the  western 
lords  of  Scotland  on  the  lords  of  the  isles  occasioned  an  expe- 
dition under  the  leadership  of  the  aged  King  Haco,  and  a  brief 
period  of  hostility  between  the  subjects,  if  not  between  the  kings, 
of  the  two  realms.  Under  Haco's  son,  Magnus,  peaceful  nego- 
tiations were  renewed,  and  speedily  brought  to  a  successful 
issue — the  ancient  kingdom  of  the  isles  being  transferred  to  the 
king  of  Scotland  for  4,000  marks  sterling,  and  an  annual  subsidy 
of   100  marks.2 

On  the  south  also  there  was  peace.  A  son  had  been  born  to 
the  king  of  Scotland,  who  received  his  father's  name,  and  there 
was  rejoicing  in  the  land.  When  peace  was  made  between 
Henry  and  his  barons,  he  granted  as  hostages  his  son  Edward 

■Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  2198,  2205-8,  2229,  2248. 

"Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  2320,  2336,  2351,  2355  ;  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  83  ff.; 
Fordun  An.,  §  56. 


1 38  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELA TIONS 

and  the  son  of  Richard  of  Cornwall,  titular  head  of  the  Holy 
Roman  empire.  Writing  to  Alexander  in  regard  to  procuring 
their  release,  he  admirably  sets  forth  the  true  relations  existing 
between  Scotland  and  England  at  this  time.     He 

....  knows  by  his  [Alexander's]  frequent  letters  that  he  is  concerned 
for  the  tranquillity  of  this  kingdom  [England]  and  the  liberation  of 
Edward,  and  feels  the  ties  of  blood  and  affinity  between  them,  and 
their  need  of  mutual  help,  seeing  the  near  contiguity  of  their  lands. 
Ernestly  begs  him  to  send  some  of  his  lieges  duly  empowered  in  the 
above  matters,  lest  the  Prince's  deliverance  be  delayed.  Hopes  his 
magnates,  and  others  of  his  land  will  be  induced  to  aid  those  of 
England,  if  another  disturbance  arises,  and  tha't  he  will  urge  those  who 
are  not  yet  bound,  to  do  so. 

He  also  sends  messengers  to  urge  the  same  viva  voce, 
and  commands  his  daughter,  the  queen,  to  use  her  influence  with 
the  king  and  his  magnates  to  the  same  end.  It  was  not  thus 
Edward  J  addressed  the  vassal  king  of  Scotland,  John  Balliol. 
These  letters  depict  an  independent  kingdom,  bound  to  another 
by  ties  of  blood  relationship  and  a  complex  feudal  tenure.  The 
king  himself  holds  lands  in  England.  The  queen  receives  the 
commands  of  her  father.  Some  of  the  magnates  of  the  north 
owe  service  for  fiefs  south  of  the  border.  They  are  urged  to  give 
their  aid  in  person  in  case  of  future  disturbance,  and  the  assistance 
of  others  who  are  under  no  obligation  for  English  fiefs  is  earnestly 
solicited.  But  there  is  no  intimation  of  a  dependent  kingdom 
subject  to  the  commands  of  an  English  overlord.  The  true  nature 
of  the  service  rendered  by  Scottish  barons  appears  in  a  grant  by 
Henry  to  John  Comyn,  "  on  account  of  the  late  disturbance  in  the 
kingdom,"  of  lands  "in  the  counties  beyond  the  Trent"  to  the 
extent  of  300  librates,  which  "he  will  make  up  to  him  before  all 
others."  Pleasant  relations  continued  during  the  remaining 
years  of  Henry's  reign,  there  being  frequent  interchange  of 
social  intercourse  between  the  royal  families.  At  the  same  time, 
Alexander  quietly  but  firmly  maintained  his  rights  against  all 
encroachments.1 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  2377-9,  2462-3,  2482-3,  2486,2519,2542.     On  the 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  139 

The  news  of  Henry's  death  reached  his  son  Edward,  who  had 

gone  on  a  crusade,  at  Capua,  early  in  1273.     He  tarried  in  Italy 

to  see  the  pope  and  get  permission  to  levy  a  tenth 

on   the  incomes  of    the   English  clergy  for  three 
Edward  I  0  *J 

years  ;  at  Paris,  to  do  homage  to  his  overlord,  Philip 

III  ;  and  in  Gascony  for  upwards  of  a  year.  In  1274  he  arrived 
in  England  and  was  crowned,  his  sister  Margaret  and  her  hus- 
band, the  king  of  Scotland,  being  present  to  witness  the  cere- 
mony. 175I.  were  granted  to  Alexander  out  of  the  first  issues 
of  the  bishopric  of  Durham,  in  lieu  of  the  corrody  of  100s.  daily 
in  "coming  to  Westminster  at  the  K.'s  mandate  and  thence  to 
his  own  country."  Edward  assured  him  that  this  visit  should 
not  form  a  precedent  injurious  to  himself  or  his  kingdom.  The 
death  of  the  beautiful  and  loved  Margaret  shortly  after  seems 
to  have  wrought  no  change  in  the  relations  between  her  husband 
and  brother.  Alexander  continued  to  maintain  both  his  public 
and  private  rights.  He  asks  that  the  bailiffs  of  Bristol  shall 
release  certain  Scottish  sailors  and  their  goods,  arrested  on  sus- 
picion of  piracy.  The  request  is  granted.  He  promises  to  do 
justice  regarding  the  plunder  of  some  merchants  by  sea-robbers, 
who  were  said  to  have  a  refuge  in  Scotland,  "according  to  the 
laws  and  customs  of  his  own  realm."  As  to  collecting  an  aid 
for  Edward  within  the  liberty  of  Tynedale,  he  "cannot  reply 
thereto  plainly  without  first  consulting  his  magnates."  In  1276 
considerable  correspondence  occurs  regarding  Scottish  encroach- 
ments at  Berwick-on-Tweed,  which  at  this  time  was  a  prominent 
center  of  commerce  —  "a  second  Alexandria."  The  bishop  of 
Durham,  in  a  letter  to  the  king,  declares  that 

....  though  the  straight  course  of  the  Twede  is  the  March  between  the 
kingdoms,  ....  yet  the  justiciars  and  bailiffs  of  the  K.  of  Scotland, 
with  a  multitude  of  the  men  of  Berwyk,  have  crossed  the  said  river  at 
Twedemuthe,  and  hold  courts  and  outlawries  on  land  once  covered  by 
the  sea  and  waves,  as  if  the  same  belonged  to  Scotland. 

attempt  of  Ottabone,  the  papal  legate,  to  levy  tithes  on  beneficiaries  in  Scotland  for 
the  use  of  Henry  in  the  crusades,  cf.  Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  106  ff.,  and  Bain,  I,  Nos. 
2558-9,  2563-4,  2646 ;  cf.  also  note  at  end  of  this  chapter. 


140  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

Some  of  the  burgesses  had  also  arrested  in  the  bishop's 
liberty,  and  imprisoned  in  Berwick,  one  of  the  bishop's  men. 
The  king  instructs  the  sheriff  of  Northumberland,  if  amends  are 
not  made,  to  arrest  Scots  passing  through  or  staying  in  his  bail- 
liary,  till  satisfaction  is  made.  Alexander  writes  to  Edward, 
promising  to  "  treat  regarding  the  controversies  on  the  March 
according  to  the  laws,  usages,  and  customs  hitherto  in  use." 
The  king  of  England  then  commands  the  bishop  "  that  if  the  K. 
of  Scotland  and  his  men  keep  on  their  own  side  of  the  river,  he 
is  to  endeavor  to  maintain  the  peace."  Edward  carefully  scru- 
tinized the  rights  and  privileges  conferred  on  the  Scottish 
king,  and  confirmed  them  rather  grudgingly.  He  also  pushed 
his  rights  as  feudal  lord  of  Scottish  nobles  holding  English  fiefs 
to  their  utmost  limit.  For  example,  Alexander  Comyn,  earl  of 
Buchan,  was  summoned  for  service  in  the  Welsh  wars.  An 
engagement  in  the  service  of  the  king  of  Scotland  took  preced- 
ence, as  usual,  but  his  son  Roger  was  sent  in  his  stead.1 

It  is  pleasant  to  catch,  in  passing,  a  glimpse  of  the  home  life 
of  the  royal  families.  Mingled  with  affairs  of  state  are  refer- 
ences to  the  health  of  the  queen  and  "the  children."  Alex- 
ander's second  son,  David,  died  at  the  age  of  ten.  But  Alex- 
ander, the  first-born,  and  his  sister,  the  princess  Margaret,  write 
to  their  big  uncle  — their  "  most  hearty  "  and  "  very  dear  uncle  " 
—  in  terms  of  the  warmest  affection.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted 
that  underneath  all  the  statecraft  and  diplomacy  of  that  era 
there  was  a  current  of  blood-relationship  and  love  which  had  an 
influence  in  the  destinies  of  these  neighboring  kingdoms.2 

For  some  unexplained   reason,  the  question  of  homage  did 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  II,  Nos.  17,  19,  33,  37,  44,  55,  59,  62-3,  82,  90,  104,  III.  Cf, 
Nos.  144,  291 ;  Introd.,  II,  p.  xi;  Foedera,  II,  pp.  216,  845.  That  the  earl's  service 
was  for  lands  in  England  is  evident  from  his  own  letters  and  those  of  Alexander  to 
Edward  —  "auxilium  quod  vobis  debet  ratione  tertarum  quas  de  vobis  tenet  infra 
regnum  vestrum."  The  earl's  wife  was  a  daughter  of  Roger  de  Quency,  through 
whom  she  inherited  large  possessions  in  England.  Bain,  II,  No.  241,  shows  that  if 
Alexander  sent  money  to  Edward,  it  was  as  a  gift,  and  not  as  an  aid  from  Tynedale. 
(National  MSS.  Scot.,  No.  LXIX ;  Foedera,  II,  p.  205.) 

2  Bain,  II,  Nos.  96,  131,  156-7,  164,  185,  204-5. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  141 

not  come  actively  to  the  front  for  several  years  after  Edward's 

coronation.     The   delay   was   apparently  owing  to 

v  lack  of  agreement  as  to  the  form  of  homage  and 

Homage  .     .     . 

the    lands    for  which    it   was    rendered.     In    1275 

Alexander  petitioned  the  king  of  England  for  the  rights  of  his 

predecessors  in  Huntingdon  and   Nottingham,  and  concerning 

other  rights.     In  1277  the  king  of  England  "is  not  to  be  anx- 

ous  or  moved "  over   a  certain   misunderstanding,  nor  to   give 

credence  to  any  "  sinister  "  reports,  as  he  [Alexander]  is  "  ever 

ready,   and   has  been,  to  preserve  the  K.'s  liberties  and  rights 

unsullied  as  his  own,  and  as  the  K.  has  promised  to  do  in  regard 

to  the  latter."     Further  correspondence  ensued,  and  letters  of 

safe-conduct  were  granted   by  the  king  and   his  magnates,  in 

March.     These    were    not    satisfactory  in    the    north,   and    the 

envoys  to  the  court  of  Edward  —  having  shown  them  to    the 

king   of   Scotland    and   his   council  —  fittingly   replied  in  their 

behalf  to  Edward.     They  state  that  the  king  of  Scotland 

....  earnestly  desires  to  come  to  him  and  do  his  pleasure  in  reason. 

But  it  would  greatly  satisfy  the  people  of  his  realm  if  he  had  the  usual 

safe  conduct  of  the  English  magnates,  or  at  least  the  K.'s  letter,  that 

the  coming  of  the  Scottish  K.  to  England  should  not  hereafter  injure 

him  or  his  heirs. 

They,  therefore,  beg  that  he  will  grant  such  letters, 

....  in  the  form  of  the  English  Chancery,  which  they  return  under 
the  bishop's  seal,  by  the  bearer,  to  be  sent  back  to  them  by  him  ; 
granting  therein,  if  it  please  him,  that  the  K.  of  Scotland  shall  go 
wherever  he  pleases  in  England,  and  that  his  escort  may  be  the  Arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  and  York  and  the  Earls  of  Gloucester,  Warenne, 
and  Lincoln,  whom  he  desires  to  have. 

Accordingly,  on  the  5th  of  June,  1278,  the  king  issued  letters 
patent  declaring  that  the  safe-conduct  granted  to  the  king  of 
Scotland  to  come  to  England  "  should  not  tend  to  the  future 
prejudice  of  that  K.  or  his  heirs."  On  the  12th  the  safe-conduct 
was  issued.  It  declared  that  if  any  of  the  king  of  Scotland's 
retinue  "  trespass  or  incur  forfeiture,  it  is  not  to  be  imputed  to 
their  K.  if  he  disavow  it,  nor  is  the  safe  conduct  to  be  thereby 


1 4 2  ANGLO-SCO TCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TLONS 

injured."  Another  document  of  the  same  date  makes  provision 
for  Alexander's  escort  in  the  respective  districts  through  which 
he  is  to  pass.  On  the  14th  the  form  of  safe -conduct  was  sent  to 
Warrenne,  earl  of  Surrey,  to  be  executed,  sealed,  and  delivered 
to  the  king  of  Scotland's  clerk.  From  this  point  there  is  some 
confusion  as  to  the  exact  order  of  events.  Edward  had  already 
written  to  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  that,  as  Alexander  had 
indicated  his  readiness  to  do  homage  "  absque  conditione  aliqua," 
it  would  be  received  at  London,  in  "  the  Quindene  of  St  Michael " 
(a  fortnight  after  Michaelmas  day).  Alexander  seems  to  have 
come  to  England,  being  present  with  Edward  in  a  parliament  at 
Gloucester  near  the  close  of  June,  just  before  that  king  crossed 
over  to  France.  The  confusion  among  the  English  writers  them- 
selves is  shown  by  Triveti,  who  says  that,  according  to  some, 
homage  had  been  already  performed  after  the  coronation  in 
1274,  while  others  held  that  the  ceremony  occurred  at  the  close 
of  the  parliament  of  Gloucester.  Both  were  wrong.  If  Alex- 
ander was  with  the  king  in  June,  he  returned  to  Scotland,  for  on 
September  3  he  wrote  to  Edward  from  Traquair  (Trevequayr). 
On  the  15th  Edward  commands  that  the  price  of  provisions 
shall  not  be  unduly  raised  during  the  visit  of  the  king  of  Scot- 
land to  England.  This,  however,  is  not  to  be  a  precedent.  On 
the  29th,  according  to  a  memorandum  in  the  Foedera,  taken  from 
the  Close  Rolls  (6  Edw.  I,  m.  5,  dorso),  homage  and  fealty  were 
rendered  by  Alexander  to  Edward  at  Westminster  in  these  words: 
"  Ego,  Alexander,  Rex  Scotiae,  devenio  ligeus  homo  Domini 
Edwardi  Regis  Angliae  contra  omnes  gentes."  Edward  received 
this  homage  "  salvo  jure  et  clamio  ejusdem  Regis  Angliae,  et 
haeredem  suorum,  de  homagio praedicti  Regis  Scotiae,  et  haeredem 
suorum,  de  Regno  Scotiae,  cum  inde  loqui  voluetint."  The  king  of 
Scotland  then  requested,  and  the  king  of  England  granted,  that 
the  oath  of  fealty  should  be  taken  by  Robert  Bruce,  earl  of 
Carrick,  in  the  king's  stead.  This  was  done,  and  confirmed  by 
Alexander  in  these  words  :  "  Ego  Alexander,  Rex  Scotiae, 
portabo  bonam  fidem  Domino  Edwardo  Regi  Angliae,  et  haere- 
dibus    suis    Regibus    Angliae,  de    vita    et    membris,  et  terreno 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  143 

honore,  et  fideliter  faciam  servitia,  debita  de  terris  et  tenementis, 
quae  teneo  de  Rege  Angliae  supradicto."  The  phraseology  of  Alex- 
ander's oath,  which  left  the  definition  of  the  lands  which  he  held 
of  Edward  to  his  own  interpretation,  together  with  Edward's  salvo, 
show  conclusively  that  homage  or  fealty  was  not  rendered  for  the 
kingdom  of  Scotland.  Other  records  show  that  it  was  distinctly 
repudiated.  That  the  account  given  in  the  memorandum  is  not 
by  a  contemporary  writer  seems  clear.  Its  unreliable  nature  is 
apparent  from  its  statement  that  this  homage  was  performed  in 
a  parliament  at  Westminster,  on  Michaelmas  day — homage 
which,  according  to  Edward's  own  undoubted  testimony,  was 
tendered  and  postponed  till  nearly  three  weeks  later.  The 
account  seems  to  be  a  confused  version  by  a  late  writer,  based 
not  on  the  facts,  but  on  the  letter  of  Edward  to  the  bishop  of 
Bath  and  Wells.  Edward's  plans,  as  outlined  in  that  letter, 
apparently  miscarried.  For,  in  a  letter  of  October  17,  given 
under  his  own  hand  —  "teste  me  ipso  apud  Coberle  "  —  he 
declared  "  that  Alexander,  K.  of  Scotland,  came  before  him  at 
Teukesbiri  on  Sunday  last  [the  1 6th],  and  offered  to  do  him 
homage;  but,  as  the  K.  had  not  his  council  with  him,  he  prorogued 
the  day  for  doing  homage  to  London,  declaring  that  such  pro- 
rogation should  not  redound  to  the  said  K.  or  his  heirs'  preju- 
dice." The  annals  of  Waverly  state  that  the  homage  was  ren- 
dered in  a  great  parliament  at  Westminster,  in  the  middle  of  the 
month  of  October,  but  say  nothing  as  to  its  nature.  According 
to  the  Scottish  account  presented  in  the  Register  of  Dunfermlyn, 
and  followed  by  Mr.  Robertson,  Alexander  became  Edward's 
liegeman  "  for  all  the  lands  I  hold  of  you  in  England,  saving 
my  own  kingdom."  The  bishop  of  Norwich  added :  "  And 
reserving  to  the  king  of  England  the  right  which  he  has  to 
homage  for  your  kingdom."  Alexander  replied  in  aloud  voice  : 
"  To  homage  for  my  kingdom  of  Scotland  none  has  right  save 
God  alone,  and  of  God  only  do  I  hold  my  kingdom."  After 
Bruce  had  sworn  fealty,  Alexander  again  added  :  "  For  the 
lands  I  hold  of  you  in  England."  This  account  is  substantiated 
by  a  papal  bull   of  June   27,    1299.      The   Scottish  church   was 


1 4  4  ANGL  0-SCO  TCH  FE  UDAL  RELA  TIONS 

independent  of  English  control,  being  directly  subject  to  the 
see  of  Rome,  like  the  English  church.  After  the  competitors 
for  the  Scottish  crown  had  submitted  themselves  to  Edward's 
overlordship,  his  interference  with  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  the 
north  called  forth  a  spirited  remonstrance  from  Boniface  VIII, 
in  which  he  cites  a  number  of  precedents,  showing  that  Edward 
had  gone  beyond  his  rights,  not  only  in  the  ecclesiastical,  but 
in  the  temporal  affairs  of  Scotland.  After  showing  that  the 
kings  of  England  had  repeatedly  guaranteed  the  liberty  and 
independence  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  he  continues : 

Et  cum  etiam  Rex  ipse  pro  Tyndaliae,  ac  de  Peynerrae  terris,  in 
Regno  Angliae  positis,  se  ad  tuam  praesentiam  personaliter  contulisset, 
tibi  fidelitatem  solitam  impensurus  ;  idem  in  praestatione  fidelitatis 
hujusmodi,  multis  tunc  praesentibus,  vivae  vocis  oraculo  publice 
declaravit,  quod  pro  terris  eisdem  sitis  tantum  in  Anglia,  non  ut  Rex 
Scotiae,  neque  pro  Scotiae  Regno  fidelitatem  exhibebat  eandem ; 
quinimmo  palam  extitit  protestatus,  quod  pro  Regno  ipso  tibi  fidelita- 
tem praestare,  seu  facere  aliquatenus  non  debebat,  ut  pote  tibi  penitus 
non  subjecto,  tuque  sic  oblatam  fidelitatem  hujusmodi  admisisti. 

It  was  the  last  homage  rendered  by  Scottish  kings  in  the 
direct  line  of  MacAlpin." 

The  pleasantest  of  relations  between  the  kingdoms  continued 

during  the  reign  of  Alexander.     Favors  are  cheerfully  granted 

to  the  young  prince  and  princess  of  Scotland  by  their 

e    ai  ure  o     unc^e)  Edward,    and  any   violation   of    Alexander's 
the  Royal  Line     ,  '  ...  .  .       .       .      T 

in  Scotia  d        rights  or  liberties  receive  speedy  justice.      In  1281 

the  princess  Margaret,  now  in  her  twenty-first  year, 

was  married  to  Eric,  king  of  Norway.     The  next  year  her  brother 

married  the  daughter  of  Guy,  count  of  Flanders.     Within  a  year 

both  prince  and  princess  were  in  their  graves  —  the  latter  leaving 

1  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  II,  Introd.,  p.  xi,  Nos.  63,  93,  104,  107,  109,  1 12-16,  119-23, 
125-6,  128  ;  Foedera,  II,  pp.  109,  136,  824  ;  Triveti,  Annales,  p.  299  ;  Early  Kings, 
II,  pp.  112,  424. 

*  In  1284  Edward  requested  from  the  pope,  Martin  IV,  a  grant  of  the  tenths  in 
Scotland  for  the  relief  of  the  Holy  Land.  It  was  granted  only  in  case  the  king  of 
Scotland  consented,  and  on  condition  that  Edward  should  personally  assume  the  cross, 
and  out  of  the  money  levied  supply  the  wants  of  the  Scotch  crusaders.  (Foedera,  I, 
p.  274.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  145 

an  only  child,  Margaret,  "  the  maiden  of  Norway."  The  prince 
had  been  the  idol  of  the  nation,  the  joy  of  his  father's  heart. 
His  dying  words  —  "  Before  tomorrow's  sunrise  the  sun  of  Scot- 
land will  have  set  " — were  echoed  in  "  the  boundless  grief  of  the 
whole  people,  the  tears  and  groans  of  all  the  clergy,  and  the 
endless  sobs  of  the  king  and  the  magnates."  A  letter  to  Edward 
from  the  widowed  and  childless  king — the  only  son  of  an  only 
son  —  a  letter  full  of  the  pathos  of  a  great  sorrow,  is  still  pre- 
served among  the  English  archives.  In  it  Alexander  thanks 
him  for  his  sympathy,  and  reminds  him 

....  that,  though  death  has  carried  off  all  of  his  blood  in  Scotland, 
one  yet  remains,  the  child  of  his  own  dearest  daughter,  the  K.'s  niece, 
the  late  queen  of  Norway,  now  under  divine  providence  the  heir 
apparent  of  Scotland.  Much  good  may  yet  be  in  store  for  them,  and 
death   only  can  dissolve  their  league  of  amity. 

Measures  were  at  once  taken  by  the  bereaved  king  to  secure 
the  succession,  and  in  a  parliament  at  Scone,  Margaret,  the 
princess  of  Norway,  was  acknowledged  by  the  nobles  as  their 
sovereign,  failing  any  heirs  who  might  yet  be  born  to  the  king 
or  to  the  wife  of  the  deceased  prince ;  her  dominions  included 
the  isles,  Man,  Tyndale,  and  Penrith,  in  addition  to  the  kingdom 
of  Scotland.  The  death  of  both  Alexander's  children  led  to  his 
marriage  with  Joleta,  daughter  of  the  count  of  Dreux,  in  1285. 
But  the  fate  of  Scotland  and  the  last  male  of  her  kingly  line  was 
at  hand.  The  air  was  full  of  forebodings,  and  the  darkest  fears 
of  loyal  Scotsmen  were  realized  when  the  news  came  that  the 
king,  attempting  to  go  from  Edinburgh  castle  to  Kinghorn  in 
the  early  gloom  of  a  wild  March  night,  had  been  thrown  by  a 
stumbling  horse,  and  found  by  his  attendants  at  the  foot  of  the 
cliffs,  dead.  The  Lowland  poet  voiced  the  cry  of  many  a  heart 
in  Scotland  when  he  wrote : 

Chryst  borne  into  Virgynyte" 
Succour  Scotland,  and  remede, 
That  stad  is  in  perplexyteV 

'Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  II,  Nos.  155-60,  197,  220-1,  224,  241,  247,248,  250,273; 
Early  Kings,  II,  pp.  114,  117  ;  Fordun,  An.,  §§  63,  64  ;  Foedera,  II,  p.  274. 


146  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

The  two  Alexanders  were  long  remembered  as  the  kings  of 
peace.  During  their  reigns  the  bonds  uniting  them  with  Eng- 
land were  constantly  drawn  closer.  Yet  it  was  the  alliance  of 
younger  and  elder  brothers,  rather  than  of  lord  and  vassal. 
There  will  be  few  to  dispute  the  judgment  which  Lord  Hailes 
has  passed  on  Alexander  III,  and  which,  says  Mr.  Bain,  the 
documents  of  the  period  fully  bear  out :  "  His  conduct  toward 
the  neighboring  kingdom  was  uniformly  candid  and  wise.  He 
maintained  that  amity  with  England  which  interest  as  well  as 
relation  to  its  sovereigns  required ;  yet  he  never  submitted  to 
any  concession  which  might  injure  the  independency  of  the  king- 
dom and  church  of  Scotland."1 

The  heir  to  the  throne  was  a  child  of  tender  years,  residing  in 
Norway.  By  common  consent  a  regency  was  appointed  in  Scot- 
land, consisting  of  six  members.  But  letters  had  already  been 
forwarded  to  Edward  from  the  grave  of  the  dead  sovereign,  by 
the  bishops  of  St.  Andrews  and  Glasgow,  and  the  magnates,  ask- 
ing his  counsel  and  advice.  He  was  nearest  of  kin  to  the  lonely 
child.  Alexander  had  specially  commended  her  to  his  protec- 
tion, plainly  intimating  that  through  her  might  come  about  a 
natural  union  between  the  two  kingdoms.  It  would  have  been 
strange  indeed  if  Edward  —  though  honestly  seeking  to  deal 
fairly  with  the  little  maid  of  Norway  and  the  kingdom  of  his 
late  brother-in-law  —  had  been  blind  to  the  political  opportunity 
which  lay  before  him.  The  Scots  also  seem  to  have  regarded  a 
union  with  England  as  the  best  resource  open  to  them.  Both 
parties,  therefore,  sought  to  bring  about  the  marriage  of  the 
princess  Margaret  with  the  crown  prince  of  England.  Honorius 
IV  sanctioned  the  marriage  on  the  ground  that  the  king  could 
find  no  equal  alliances  for  his  children  save  within  the  forbidden 
degrees.  It  was  also  urged  that  if  Margaret  married  any  other 
prince,  war  would  arise  between  Scotland  and  England,  and 
Edward  be  prevented  from  going  on  his  promised  crusade.  Rep- 
resentatives appointed  October  3,  1289,  by  the  guardians  of  the 

1  Annals,  Vol.  I,  p.  202. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  147 

realm  of  Scotland,  met  with  others  from  England  and  Norway, 
at  Salisbury — "salvis  tamen,  in  omnibus  et  singulis,  et  per  omnia 
libertate  et  honore  Regni  Scotiae."  They  were  to  negotiate  a 
treaty  for  the  conveyance  of  Margaret  from  Norway,  either  to 
Scotland,  or  to  the  care  of  her  uncle,  Edward.  But  there  is  no 
doubt  both  parties  had  in  mind  the  subsequent  marriage  treaty 
concluded  at  Brigham,  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Tweed  (July 
1 8,  1290).  The  chief,  articles,  proposed  by  the  English  to  the 
"nobiles  viros,  Comites,  et  Barones,  totamque  Communitatem 
Regni  Scotiae,"  and  accepted  in  their  behalf  by  the  guardians  of 
the  realm  of  Scotland,  were : 

1.  That  the  rights,  laws,  liberties,  and  customs  of  Scotland  should 
remain  forever  entire  and  inviolable,  throughout  the  whole  realm  and 
its  marches,  saving  always  the  right  of  the  king  of  England,  and  of  ah 
others  which,  before  the  date  of  this  treaty,  belonged  to  him,  or  any  of  them, 
in  the  marches,  or  elsewhere,  or  which  ought  to  belong  to  him,  or  any  of 
them,  in  all  time  coming. 

This,  says  Lord  Hailes,  was  "the  fatal  salvo,  so  artfully 
devised  as  to  bear  the  semblance  of  impartiality,  and  to  prevent 
all  suspicion  of  sinister  views.  Yet  in  it  the  foundations  were 
laid  for  England's  claim  of  feudal  sovereignity  over  Scotland." 

2.  Failing  Margaret  and  Edward,  or  either  of  them,  without  issue, 
the  kingdom  shall  return  to  the  nearest  heirs,  to  whom  it  ought  of 
right  to  return,  wholly,  freely,  absolutely,  and  without  any  subjection ; 
so  that  hereby  nothing  shall  either  accrue  or  decrease  to  the  king  of 
England,  to  his  heirs,  or  to  any  one  else. 

The  kingdom  of  Scotland  shall  remain  separate  and  divided  from 
England,  free  in  itself,  and  without  subjection,  according  to  the  right 
boundaries  and  marches,  as  heretofore.     (Salvo  as  in  Art.  I.) 

4.  No  native  of  Scotland  shall,  in  any  case,  whether  of  covenant 
made,  or  crime  committed  in  Scotland,  be  compelled  to  answer  out  of 
the  kingdom,  contrary  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  Scotland,  heretofore 
of  reason  observed. 

A  final  protestation  was  added  to  the  treaty:  "That  the 
premises  shall  be  so  understood,  as  that  nothing  may  thereby 
accrue  to,  or  decrease  from,  the  right  of  either  kingdom,  or  of 


148  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

the  sovereigns  thereof."  The  intent  and  purpose  of  this  docu- 
ment are  perfectly  clear.  Had  the  child-queen  lived,  the  liberties 
of  Scotland,  so  jealously  watched  over,  might  have  survived 
unharmed.  These  provisions  were  ratified  by  Edward  at  North- 
ampton, August  28,  1290.1 

Great  preparations  were  made  for  bringing  this  "child  of  so 
many  hopes"  to  her  kingdom  and  future  home.  But  suddenly, 
in  the  midst  of  them  all,  the  prospect  of  a  peaceful  alliance  was 
overclouded  by  the  rumor  of  the  maiden's  death  at  Orkney, 
while  en  route  to  her  realm.  Trouble  and  despair  settled  on  the 
unhappy  land  of  the  north.  The  bishop  of  St.  Andrews  wrote 
to  the  king  of  England,  urging  him  to  come  to  the  march  with- 
out delay,  to  prevent  bloodshed.  No  provision  had  been  made 
for  the  succession  in  case  of  Margaret's  death.  That  possibility 
must  have  been  foreseen,  and  it  seems  as  if  the  nobles  had  pur- 
posely left  it  unprovided  for,  in  order  to  further  their  own  selfish 
ends.  Indeed,  a  bond  had  been  entered  into  between  Robert 
Bruce  and  other  nobles,  as  early  as  September,  1286,  for  mutual 
defense  and  assistance,  which  looked  to  the  establishment  of 
Bruce  as  king,  "according  to  the  ancient  custom  hitherto 
approved  and  observed  in  the  kingdom  of  Scotland."  He  was 
but  one  of  many  who,  through  the  failure  of  direct  heirs  to  the 
crown,  waited  for  some  turn  of  fate  which  might  open  to  them 
the  path  to  royal  honors.  Thus  it  was  that  Scotland — torn  by 
rival  factions  and  left  to  the  mercy  of  a  king,  who,  great  as  he 
was,  and  just  as  he  wished  to  be  considered,  could  not  resist  the 
temptation  to  extend  his  power  beyond  the  limits  of  right  and 
justice — for  the  second  time  in  her  history  passed  under  the 
hand  of  an  English  overlord.  But  this  was  chiefly  brought  about 
by  the  southern  barons,  many  of  them  of  Norman  descent,  hold- 
ing lands  in  England,  and  sympathizing  with  their  English  over- 
lord. The  Scottish  Commons,  not  yet  risen  to  marked  power, 
steadily  resisted  any  such  concessions,  and  preserved  untainted 
that  loyalty  and  devotion  to  the  national  cause  which  found  a 

'Foedera,  II,  pp.  431,  450,  482  ;  Hailes'  Annals,  I,  p.  208 ;  Stevenson,  Docts.,  I, 
pp.  105,  III,  162  ;  Bain,  II,  Nos.  298,  392;  Fordun,  An.,  §  68. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  149 

leader  in  the  noble  Bruce,  and  saw  the  dawn  of  a  new  day  of 
independence  in  the  victory  of  Bannockburn.1 

Note  {cf.  p.  139). — During  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  the  Inspeximus 
charter  had  its  rise.  It  was  nothing  more  than  the  royal  acknowl- 
edgment of  having  seen  and  confirmed  some  diploma  granted  by  the 
king,  or  his  predecessors,  without  altering  the  nature  of  the  original 
grant.  On  attaining  his  majority,  Henry  announced  that  no  charters, 
either  lay  or  ecclesiastical,  would  be  regarded  as  of  moment  till  they 
had  been  renewed  under  the  king's  new  seal."  Among  the  charters 
thus  confirmed  is  one  which  bears  on  the  question  of  Lothian.  It  is 
an  Inspeximus  by  Henry  of  a  charter  by  King  John,  to  the  prior  and 
monks  of  Durham,  of  all  the  lands,  tithes,  churches,  and  tenures, 
belonging  to  the  Priory  —  some  of  which  are  found  north  of  the  Tweed. 
It  is  not  strange  that  the  monks  of  Durham,  holding  lands  on  the  bor- 
ders, where  they  would  suffer  most  from  the  ravages  of  war,  should 
seek  confirmation  of  their  charters  at  the  hands  of  both  kings,  irre- 
spective of  the  location  of  the  holdings.  Frequent  instances  occur.3 
The  question  at  issue  is,  Did  John,  in  this  charter  make  new  grants  to 
Durham,  north  of  the  Tweed,  thereby  evidencing  his  superiority  over 
that  region  ;  or,  did  he  merely  confirm  grants  already  made  by  the 
kings  of  England  and  Scotland?  Mr.  Bain  says  this  charter  "is  inter- 
esting and  valuable,  as  distinctly  showing  the  superiority  of  the  Eng- 
lish kings  over  that  district"  [Lothian].  It  begins:  "Sciatis  nos 
concessisse  et  confirmasse  in  puram  et  perpetuam  elemosinam,  Domino 
et  Sancto  Cuthberto,"  .  .  .  A  There  follows  a  long  list  of  lands  in 
England,  and  then:  "The  church  of  Norham,  with  its  chapels,  lands, 
and  waters ;  and  the  vill  of  Schoreswirth  (Surwirth),  beyond  the  river 
of  Tweed ;  Coldingham,  with  its  church  and  pertinents,  viz.,  Halde- 
cambehus,  with  the  church,  Lummesdenes,  Reynton,  and  Grenewude, 
and  the  two  Rystones,  Aldegrave,  Swynewde,  and  the  two  Eystones, 
with  the  mills  and  port,  and  Prendregeste,  with  the  mill ;  Ederham 
and  its  church,  with  all  its  chapels ;  and  the  two  Swintones,  with  the 

1  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  II,  No.  464  ;  Nat.  MSS.  Scot.,  I,  No.  LXX ;  Stevenson,  Docts., 
I,  p.  22. 

3  Rotuli  Chart.,  Introd.,  pp.  iv  ff. 

3  Bain,  Cal.  Docts.,  I,  Nos.  2216,  2231,  2275-6. 

*  St.  Cuthbert's  was  originally  located  at  Lindesfarne,  and  its  lands  extended  as 
far  north  as  the  Forth.     It  was  removed  to  Durham  in  995. 


15°  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

church ;  the  church  of  Berewick,  with  its  pertinents ;  Fyswik,  with  the 
church ;  Paxtone ;  Nessebyte,  with  the  mill ;  the  church  of  Edinham, 
with  the  chapel  of  Stichehulle,  and  its  pertinents ;  and,  moreover,  all 
that  they  possess  in  Lothian  (Lodoneyo),  by  will  (voluntate)  of  the 
monks  of  St.  Cuthbert,  to  be  disposed  of  as  the  charter  of  Edgar  K.  of 
Scots  attests.  Besides  these,  all  that  the  kings  of  England  or 
Scotland,  or  the  bishops  of  Durham,  have  given  or  granted  to  them, 
in  perpetual  alms."1  The  basis  for  this  charter  was  laid  in  the  days 
of  William  Rufus.  Under  Malcolm  III,  two  parties  had  developed 
in  Scotland,  one  purely  Scottish  in  spirit,  the  other  sympathizing 
with  the  English  alliance,  made  up  chiefly  of  the  foreigners  who  came 
in  with  Queen  Margaret,  and  of  the  Normans  and  Saxons  dwelling  in 
the  Lowlands.  On  the  death  of  Malcolm,  the  Scottish  party  placed 
his  brother  Donald  Bain  on  the  throne.  Malcolm's  son  by  Ingebiorg, 
Duncan,  a  hostage  at  the  English  court,  had  continued  to  reside  there 
after  his  release.  With  the  consent  of  William  Rufus  he  now  suc- 
ceeded in  driving  Donald  from  the  throne  of  Scotland,  but  was  in  turn 
surprised,  his  followers  killed,  and  he  himself  allowed  to  rule  only  on 
condition  of  renouncing  his  alliance  with  the  detested  Saxons.  He 
was  killed  soon  after  and  Donald  was  restored.  Malcolm  had  left 
three  sons  by  Queen  Margaret.  With  the  consent  of  William,  but 
mainly  through  the  efforts  of  Margaret's  brother,  Edgar  Aetheling, 
Donald  was  again  driven  from  his  throne,  and  Edgar,  the  eldest  son 
of  Malcolm  and  Margaret,  was  established  as  king  of  Scotland.  In  the 
group  of  charters  which  follows,  the  first  is  by  Duncan,  granting  Tin- 
ingham  and  other  lands  to  St.  Cuthbert.  The  expression  "constans 
hereditarie  Rex  Scotiae"  is  thought  to  throw  doubt  on  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  charter.  It  certainly  expresses  the  only  principle  on 
which  the  Scots  consented  to  permit  him  to  rule  over  them.2  (i)  The 
first  of  Edgar's  charters  (1097-1107),  relating  to  lands  north  of  the 
Tweed,  is  one  in  which  he  styles  himself  "by  the  grace  of  God,  King 
of  the  Scots,"  and  grants  to  St.  Cuthbert's  "  Fiswic  tarn  in  terris  quam 
in  aquis  et  cum  omnibus  sibi  adiacentibus ;  et  nominatim  illam  terram 
que  iacet  inter  Horuerdene  et  Cnapedene  ....  liberam  et  quietam 

«Bain,  I,  Tntrod.,  p.  Ixiii,  No.  1924;  Rotuli  Chart.,  I,  p.  119. 

2  Nat.  MSS.  Scot.,  I,  Introd.,  p.  viii,  p.  4;  cf.  Raine,  North  Durham,  pp.  374-6. 
"  The  lands  granted  were  part  of  the  endowment  of  the  see  of  St.  Andrew's,  to  which 
they  again  reverted,  probably  when  Duncan's  usurpation  of  the  Scottish  throne  came 
to  an  end."  (Had.  and  Stubbs,  Counc,  Vol.  II,  Pt.  I,  p.  165,  note.) 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  III  151 

tenendam  et  habendam,  et  ad  uoluntatem  monachorum  Sancti  Cuth- 
berti  domini  mei  disponendam."  Edgar  was  present  at  the  dedication 
of  the  church  of  St.  Mary  at  Coldingham,  and  (2)  granted  in  endow- 
ment (1097-8)  "the  whole  town  of  Swintun,  with  its  marches  as  Liulf 
held  it,"  under  the  same  tenure  as  above.  Another  charter  (3)  includes 
Paxton  to  be  held  on  the  same  conditions.  The  grant  of  Coldingham 
to  Durham  includes  the  messuages  of  Aldcambus,  Lummesdene,  Reg- 
nintun,  Ristun,  Swinewde,  Farndun,  Eitun,  "The  other  Eitun,"  Prene- 
gest,  Cramesmuthe.  These  also  are  to  be  freely  disposed  of  at  the  will 
of  the  monks  of  Durham  forever.  (4)  The  original  of  the  next  char- 
ter granted  by  Edgar  has  been  lost,  but  "good  and  unsuspected 
copies'"  have  been  preserved.  This  is  the  well  known  charter  in  which 
are  the  words  "  Edgarus  Alius  Malcolmi  Regis  Scottorum  totam  terram 
de  Lodoneio  et  regnum  Scotie  dotio  domini  mei  Willelmi  Anglorum  Regis 
et  paterna  her  editate  possidetis,  consilio  praedicti  domini  Regis  IV.  et  fide- 
Hum  meorum.  ..."  Accompanying  this  is  a  charter  of  William 
Rufus,  in  which  he  confirms  the  grant  of  Edgar  to  Durham.  It  begins 
"  Sciatis  me  concessisse  Deo  ....  terras  in  Lodoneio  quas  Edgarus 
rex  filius  Malcolmi  regis  Scottorum  .  ...  me  concedente  donauit,"  and 
includes  the  messuage  of  Berwick,  with  those  of  Greidene,  Leinhale, 
Dylsterhale,  Brycgham,  Ederham,  Cirnside,  Hyltun,  Blacedre,  Cyne- 
brihtham,  Hotun,  Reinintun,  Paxtun,  Fugeldene,  Morthintun,  Lam- 
bertun,  "  the  other  Lambertun,"  Haedrintun,  Fiscwic,  Horeford, 
Upsetinton.  Also  the  messuage  of  Coldingham  with  those  of  Aldcam- 
bus, Lummesdene,  Ristun,  Suinestun,  Farndun,  Eitun,  "the  other 
Eitun,"  Prenegest,  Crammesmuthe,  Haedentun.  Another  charter  (5) 
contains  the  words  "  Edgarus  Dei  gratia  Rex  Scottorum.  .  .  .  Sciatis 
nos  ex  licentia  Willelmi Regis  Anglie  superioris  domini  regni Scotiae  .  .  .  ." 
Even  Palgrave  admits  it  to  be  a  forgery,  possibly  by  Hardynge.  Raine 
considers  (4)  to  be  genuine  and  is  supported  by  Cosmo  Innes  and 
Bain.  They  point  out  the  distinction  which  Edgar  made  between  his 
title  to  Lothian,  which  he  held  by  gift  (donum)  of  the  English  king, 
and  to  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  which  he  held  independently  as  his 
paterna  hereditas.*  Innes  represents  the  consensus  of  expert  authority 
on  this  question  when  he  says:   "It  is  now  held,  without  much  differ- 

1  Cosmo  Innes,  Nat.  MSS.  Scot.,  Introd.,  I,  p.  viii. 

•Haddan  regards  both  (4)  and  (5)  as  forgeries,  and  says  Raine's  arguments  "fail 
to  establish  any  distinction  in  favor  of  (4)."  (H.  and  S.,  Counc,  II,  Pt.  I,  p.  166, 
note.) 


IS2  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

ence  of  opinion,  that  Edgar  may  have  wished  to  acknowledge,  or  was 
not  minded  to  dispute,  some  claim  of  property  or  superiority  of  Wil- 
liam in  these  Berwickshire  lands,  and  that  the  monks  of  Durham  were 
well  pleased  to  hold  them  by  the  grants  of  both  kings.  Neither  party 
dreamt  of  giving  or  taking  a  right  of  superiority  to  the  king  of  Eng- 
land over  the  kingdom  of  Scotland.  Sir  Francis  Palgrave,  in  his 
Anglo-Saxon  zeal,  had  worked  himself  up  to  be  of  a  different  opinion  ; 
hut  pace  tanti  vtrt,  the  question  has  been  settled  by  more  temperate 
historians;  and  an  Englishman  who  knew  more  of  the  evidence  than 
any  man  of  his  time  has  wound  up  his  argument  thus  :  'That  homage 
was  paid  from  time  to  time  is  certain,  but  it  was  for  territories  held  of 
the  English  crown  and  not  for  Scotland  at  large'  (Raine's  History  of 
North  Durham,  p.  377)-" x 

These  charters  of  Edgar,  issued  in  the  spirit  of  his  English  mother 
Margaret,  were  duly  confirmed  by  his  brothers,  Alexander  as  king,  and 
David  as  earl,  though  as  king  David  simply  grants  the  lands  in 
Lothian,  "to  wit,  Coldingham,  Aldecambus,  Lumesdene,  Prenegest, 
Eitun,  the  other  Eitun,  and  Crammesmuth,  Lambertun  and  the  other 
Lambertun,  Paxtun,  Fiswic,  and  Swinton."a  No  mention  is  made  of 
the  other  lands  granted  by  Edgar  and  confirmed  by  William  Rufus. 

The  question  does  not  reappear  till  the  reign  of  John.  He  con- 
firms to  the  church  of  Durham  all  the  lands,  etc.,  including  those 
granted  by  Edgar.  Here  is  an  appearance  of  English  superiority  north 
of  the  Tweed  which  the  sources  elsewhere  forbid  us  to  entertain  as  a 
permanent  fact.  An  explanation  of  this  contradiction  may  be  found 
(1)  in  the  fact  that  these  lands  were  "to  be  freely  disposed  of  at  the 
will  of  the  monks  of  Durham  forever ; "  or  (2)  in  some  of  the  secret 
agreements  between  John  and  William  the  Lion.  But  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  explanation  of  the  charter  is  found  in  the  bonds  which 
were  knitting  north  and  south  into  one  great  family.  Under  these 
conditions  the  exact  line  of  demarcation  between  the  two  sovereign- 
ties, and  perfect  equity  in  the  exercise  of  kingly  powers,  might  be 
found  wanting,  without  thereby  implying  any  permanent  change  of 
conditions.  It  is  tolerably  certain  that  William  Rufus  exercised  some 
sort  of  superiority  in  Lothian  during  the  reign  of  Edgar.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  that  superiority  continued  after  David  reunited  the  sover- 

1  Nat.  MSS.  Scot.,  I,  pp.  5,  6 ;  Introd.,  p.  ix  ;  Bain,  I,  Introd.,  p.  lxiii ;  Palgrave, 
Scot.  Docts.,  I,  p.  ccxvi. 

3  Nat.  MSS.  Scot.,  I,  pp.  7-8. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ALEXANDER  HI  1 53 

eignty  of  Scotland,  north  and  south  of  the  Forth,  in  his  own  person. 
Palgrave's  assertion  that  the  king  of  Scots  had  the  same  jurisdiction  in 
Lothian  as  in  Tynedale,  and  held  it  by  the  same  allegiance,  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  sources.  This  fact  makes  it  necessary  to  explain  John's 
charter  in  some  other  way  than  on  the  ground  of  superiority  over 
Lothian.  Even  granting  that  Lothian  was  held  on  as  free  conditions 
as  a  Palatine  county  of  England,  it  should  have  reverted  to  the 
escheator  on  the  death  of  its  holder.  Tynedale  as  a  regality  does  so  in 
every  instance,  Lothian  never.  Tynedale  is  included  in  the  compotus 
of  lands  in  England  of  which  Alexander  III  received  seizin  ;  Lothian 
is  not.  When  Balliol  swore  fealty  and  rendered  homage,  late  in  1292, 
to  Edward,  "  King  of  England  and  Superior  Lord  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Scotland,"  he  received  possession  of  his  kingdom,  and  in  January, 
1293,  had  seizin  of  the  Isle  of  Man  without  further  homage.  Nearly  a 
year  elapsed  before  he  regained  his  English  fiefs.  Lothian  was  not 
among  them,  nor  is  it  once  mentioned.  Two  inquisitions  (under  writs 
dated  at  Newcastle-on-Tyne,  January  1,  1292)  at  Carlisle  and  at  Werk 
in  Tynedale,  made  by  English  jurors  before  the  escheator  citra  Trent, 
"find  that  the  late  Alexander  K.  of  Scots  held  in  capite  of  the  K.  of 
England  the  manors  of  Penrith,  Soureby,  Langwathby,  Salkild,  Kar- 
latton,  Scotteby,  delivering  a  year  old  goshawk  annually  at  the  castle 
of  Carlisle,  ....  and  doing  homage  to  the  Kings  of  England.  They 
are  worth  200I.  yearly.  John  de  Balliol  is  the  next  heir  and  is  30 
years  of  age."  The  same  finding  is  made  regarding  Tynedale,  except 
that  the  lands  are  held  by  the  sole  service  of  homage  and  are  worth 
108I.  yearly.1  The  king  commanded  the  escheator  to  put  Balliol  in 
possession,  provided  that  before  or  in  the  quinzaine  of  St.  Michael  next 
he  does  homage.  A  distinct  line  was  thus  drawn  between  homage  for 
his  kingdom  and  for  his  English  lands.  In  October,  1293,  he  renders 
homage,  as  his  predecessors,  the  kings  of  Scotland,  had  done,  not  for 
his  kingdom,  which  included  Lothian  and  the  Isle  of  Man,  but  "de 
omnibus  terris  et tenementis"  which  he  holds  "in  capite  in  Ang/ia,"  viz., 
Tynedale,  the  above  mentioned  lands  in  Cumberland,  and  his  purparty 
of  the  honor  of  Huntingdon."  Had  Lothian  been  aught  but  an  inte- 
gral portion  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  it  must  have  appeared  in  the 
record  of  these  transactions.     Henry's  Inspeximus  charter,  therefore, 

1  The  annual  entry  in  the  Rolls  for  Tynedale  —  held  by  Scottish  kings  from  Henry 
II  to  Edward  I  —  is  iol. 

"Bain,  II,  Nos.  664-5,  669,  679;  Foedera,  II,  p.  616. 


154  ANGLO-SCOTCH  FEUDAL  RELATIONS 

was  simply  a  confirmation  of  John's  confirmation  of  Edgar's  charter, 
which  had  been  first  confirmed  by  William  Rufus.  If  English  superi- 
ority over  Lothian  ever  existed,  it  was  of  a  temporary  and  exceptional 
character,  and  did  not  form  a  part  of  the  continuous  feudal  relations 
between  the  kings  of  England  and  Scotland. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

SOURCES. 

SCOTCH  RECORD  PUBLICATIONS. 

Calendar  of   Documents   relating   to   Scotland,  preserved   in   her  Majesty's  Public 
Record  Office,  London.  Ed.,  Joseph  Bain.     Edinburgh. 

SCHEDULE  OF  RECORDS  EXAMINED,  VOL.  I  (1881). 

EXCHEQUER. 

No.  of  Rolls 

Pipe  Rolls,  31  Henry  I  to  56  Henry  III,             116 

Chancellor's  Rolls,  2  Henry  II  to  Henry  III  (65) 9 

Originaha  Rolls,  II  Henry  II, 33 

Memoranda  Rolls,  9  Richard  I  to  I  John, I 

Memoranda  Rolls,  10  John, I 

Memoranda  Rolls  (Q.  R.),  I  to  57  Henry  III,              45 

Memoranda  Rolls  (L.  T.  R.),  1  to  56  Henry  III, 48 

Wardrobe  Accounts,  36-57  Henry  III, 35 

"  The  Red  Book  "  of  Exchequer, 

Liber  "  A,"  Chapter  House,        .......... 

Issue  Rolls  (Pells),  25-47  Henry  III 12 

Misae  Roll,  14  John, I 

CHANCERY. 

Patent  Rolls,  3  John  to  57  Henry  III 90 

Close  Rolls,  6  John  to  57  Henry  III, 94 

Charter  Rolls,  1  John  to  56  Henry  III, 66 

Oblata,  1-9  John 4 

Misae,  1 1  John, I 

Praestita,  7-12,            ............  2 

Fine  Rolls,  6  John  to  56  Henry  III, 69 

Liberate  Rolls,  2  John  to  57  Henry  III,               47 

French  Rolls,  26  Henry  III,                I 

Chancery  Files  (temp.  John  and  Henry  III) 13  bundles 

Inquisitions  post  mortem  [temp.  Henry  III),       ....... 

Tower  Miscellaneous  Rolls,  Scottish  affairs,  Portfolio  No.  459,  .        .        . 

Papal  Bulls,  Innocent  IV  97, 


7'     \ 


Papal  Bulls,  Alexander  IV  28, 

Royal  Letters,  

Miscellaneous  Portfolios,  Nos.  7,  9,  10,  15,  16,  41, 

155 


1 5  6  ANGLO-SCO  TCH  FE  UDAL  RELA  TIONS 

queen's  bench. 

Coram  Rege  Rolls,  6  Richard  I  to  57  Henry  III, 172 

Assize  Rolls,  40-53  Henry  II,  8 

COMMON   PLEAS. 

Feet  of  Fines,  Richard  I  to  Henry  III 81 

DUCHY    OF   LANCASTER. 

Charters, 3  vols 

Grants  (in  boxes)  Box  ("  A,") 

STATE    PAPER   OFFICE. 

Privy  seal, 3  bundles 

VOL.  II  (1884). 

EXCHEQUER. 

No.  of  Rolls,  etc. 

Pipe  Rolls,  1-35  Edward  I,                          35 

Chancellor's  Rolls,  1-15  Edward  I,            15 

Origmalia  Rolls,  1-21, 19 

Memoranda  Rolls  (Q.  R.),  1-35  Edward  1 31 

Memoranda  Rolls  (L.  T.  R.),  1-20,             17 

Miscellanea  (Q.  R.),  1-35  Edward  I. — 

Miscellanea  (Q.  R.  Army),  1-35  Edward  I,                 — 

Miscellanea  (Q.  R.  Wardrobe),  1-35  Edward  I,          ......  — 

Miscellanea  Treasury  of  Receipt,  1-35  Edward  I,      .....         .  — 

Liber  "  A,"  Chapter  House, 

Paper  Documents,  Chapter  House,  7  Portfolios,  v.  y. 

Scots  Documents,  Chapter  House,  ........ 

CHANCERY. 

Patent  Rolls,  1-35  Edward  I,     .         . 37 

Close  Rolls,  1-35  Edward  1 35 

Charter  Rolls,  2-35  Edward  1 34 

Fine  Rolls,  1-28  Edward  I,         .         .         .         .....         .         .         28 

Liberate  Rolls,  1-35  Edward  1 35 

Chancery  Files,  1-35  Edward  I, .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .    II  bundles 

Inquisitions  post  mortem,  1-35  Edward  I, 

Tower  miscellaneous  Rolls,  Portfolio  No.  459,  

Papal  Bulls  (Alexander  IV-Clement  V),  170 

Royal  Letters,  ............ 

Miscellaneous  Portfolios,  Nos.  II,  41,  475, 

Parliamentary  Petitions, 

Writs  of  Privy  Seal  (Tower) 17  bundles 

QUEEN'S   BENCH. 

Assize  Rolls,  Northumberland,  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  etc., 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 5  ^ 

DUCHY   OF   LANCASTER. 

Charters,  3  vols. 

Grants  (in  boxes)  "  A,"  "  B,"  etc.,  

Documents  Illustrative  of  the  History  of  Scotland  from  the  death  of  Alexander  III  to 

the  accession  of  Robert  Bruce.      Ed.  Joseph  Stevenson.    2  vols.     1870. 
Facsimiles  of  the  National  MSS.  of  Scotland.     Introd.,  Cosmo  Innes.    3  vols. 

PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  RECORD  COMMISSIONERS. 

Rotuli    Chartarum,   in    Turri   Londinensi  Asservati.    Ed.,    Thomas   Duffus    Hardy. 

Vol.I.    1837. 
Documents    and    Records    illustrating  the   History  of  Scotland,  and    Transactions 

between  England  and  Scotland  ;    preserved  in  the  treasury  of  her  Majesty's 
Exchequer.  Ed.  Francis  Palgrave.     Vol.  I.    1837. 
Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes  of  England.     Ed.,  Benjamin  Thorpe.    2  vols.    1840. 

SURTEES  SOCIETY. 

Historiae  Dunelmensis  Scriptores  Tres.     Ed.,  James  Raine.     London,  1839. 

ENGLISH  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY. 

Codex  Diplomaticus,  Aevi  Saxonici.     Ed.,  Johannis  M.  Kemble.     6  vols.     1839. 
Bedae  Historia  Ecclesiastica  Gentis  Anglorum.     Ed.,  Josephus  Stevenson.     1838. 
Florentii  Wigorniensis  Chronicon  ex  Chronicis.    Ed.,  Benjamin  Thorpe.    2  vols.    1848. 
Historia  Rerum  Anglicarum  Willelmi  de  Newburgh.     Ed.,  Hans  Claude   Hamilton. 

1856. 
Chronicon  Walteri  de  Hemingburgh.     Ed.,  Hans  Claude  Hamilton.     2  vols.     1848. 
F.  Nicholai  Triveti  Annates.     Ed.,  Thomas  Hog.   1845. 

CHRONICLES  AND  MEMORIALS  (ROLLS  SERIES). 

Descriptive  Catalogue  of  Manuscripts  relating  to  the  History  of  Great  Britain  and 

Ireland.     Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus  Hardy.     3  vols.     1 862-1 871. 
Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle.     Ed.  and  Trans.,  Benjamin  Thorpe.     2  vols.     1861. 
Gesta  Regis  Henrici  Secundi  Benedicti  Abbatis.    Ed.,  William  Stubbs.    2  vols.     1867. 
Chronica  Magistri  Rogeri  de   Hovedene.     Ed.,  William  Stubbs.     4  vols.     1868-1871. 
Memoriale  Fratris  Walteri  de  Coventria.     Ed.,  William   Stubbs.     2  vols.     1872-1873. 
Radulfi  de  Diceto  Opera  Historica.     Ed.,  William  Stubbs.     2  vols.     1876. 
Willelmi  Monachi  Malmesbiriensis  de  Regum  Gestis  Anglorum.     Ed.,  William  Stubbs. 

2  vols.     1887-1889. 
Henrici  Archidiaconi  Huntenduniensis  Historia  Anglorum.      Ed.,  Thomas  Arnold. 

1879- 
Historical  Works  of  Symeon  of  Durham.     Ed.,  Thomas  Arnold.     2  vols.     1882-1885. 
Eadmeri  Historia  Novorum  in  Anglia.     Ed.,  Martin  Rule.     1884. 
Chronicles  of  the  Reigns  of  Stephen,  Henry  II,  and   Richard  I.     Ed.,  Richard  How- 

lett.    Vols.  Ill  and  IV.     1884- 1890. 
Chronica  Rogeri  de  Wendover.     Ed.,  Henry  Gay  Hewlett     3  vols.     1886-1889. 


1 5 8  ANGLO-SCO TCH  FEUDAL  RELA  TIONS 

Matthaei  Parisiensis,  Chronica  Majora.     Ed.,  Henry  Richards  Luard.     7  vols.     1872- 

1884. 

Historia  Anglorum.     Ed.,  Frederic  Madden.     3  vols.     1866-1869. 

War  of  the  Gaedhil  with  the  Gaill.     Ed.,  James  Henthorn  Todd.     1867. 

Ricardi  de  Cirencestria  Speculum  Historiale.     Ed.,  John  E.  B.  Mayor.     1863-1869. 

Brut  y  Twysogion.     Ed.,  John  Williams  ab  Ithel.     i860. 

Works  of  Giraldus  Cambrensis.     Ed.,  J.  S.  Brewer,  James  F.  Dimock,  and  George  F. 

Warner.     8  vols.     1861-1891. 
Capgrave's  Chronicle  of  England.     Ed.,  Francis  Charles  Hingeston.     1858. 
Annales  Monastici.     Ed.,  Henry  Richards  Luard.     Vols.  I— III.     1864-1866. 

HISTORIANS  OF  SCOTLAND. 

Johannis  de  Fordun  Chronica  Gentis  Scotorum.     Ed.,  William  Forbes  Skene.     1871. 
Androw,  of  Wyntoun.     Orygynale  Cronykil  of  Scotland.     Ed.,  David  Laing.     3  vols. 
1871. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Foedera,  Conventiones,  Litterae,  etc.     Thoma  Rymer.     2d  Ed.,  Vols.  I  and  II.     Lon- 
don, 1727. 

Syllabus  in  English  of  Rymer's  Foedera.     Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus  Hardy.    3  vols.     1869- 
1885. 

Liber  Niger  Scaccarii.     Thomas  Hearnii.     2  vols.     London,  1774. 

General  Introduction  to  Domesday  Book.     Henry  Ellis.     2  vols.     1833. 

Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Documents  relating  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.     Ed., 
after  Spelman  and  Wilkins,  by  Haddan  and  Stubbs.     3  vols.     Oxford,  1869. 

Select  Charters.     Ed.,  William  Stubbs.     7th  Ed.     Oxford.,     1890. 

Historiae  Anglicanae  Scriptores  X.     Ed.,  Roger  Twysden.     London,  1652. 

Ecclesiastical  History  of  England  and  Normandy.     Ordericus  Vitalis.     (Bohn  Library.) 

Flowers  of  History.     Matthew  of  Westminster.     (Bohn  Library.) 

Annals  of  the  Caledonians,  Picts  and  Scots.     Ed.,  Joseph  Ritson.     2  vols.     Edinburgh, 
1828. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Bacon,  Francis  :  Life  and  Letters  of.     Ed.,  James  Spedding.     7  vols.     London,  1890. 
Burton,  John  Hill :  History  of  Scotland.     2d  Ed.,  8  vols.     Edinburgh  and  London. 
Eyton,   Robert  William :  Court,  Household,    and  Itinerary  of   Henry   II.     London, 

1878. 
Freeman,  Edward  A.:  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest  in  England.     Vols.  I  and  II, 

3d  Ed.;  Ill  and  IV,  2d  Ed.;  V,  1st  Ed.     Oxford,  1877. 
Reign  of  William  Rufus  and  the  Accession  of  Henry  I.     2  vols.     Oxford, 

1882. 
Gardiner,  Samuel  R.:  Student's  History  of  England.     New  York,  1895. 
Green,  John  Richard  :  Conquest  of  England.     New  York. 

History  of  the  English  People.     4  vols.     New  York. 

Guest,  Edwin:  Origines  Celticae.     2  vols.     London,  1883. 

Hailes,  (Dalyrimple,  David):  Annals  of  Scotland.     3  vols.     Edinburgh,  1797. 

Hume,  David  :  History  of  England.     6  vols.     New  York,  1879. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  159 

Innes,  Thomas :  Critical  Essay  on  the  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  the  Northern   Parts  of 

Britain  or  Scotland.     (Historians  of  Scotland  Series.) 
Lingard,  John  :  History  of  England.     5th  Ed.     10  vol.     London,  1849. 
Lyttelton,  George  Lord :  History  of  the  Life  of  King  Henry  the  Second  and  of  the 

Age  in  which  he  lived.     6  vols.     London,  1769. 
Madox,  Thomas  :  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Exchequer  of  the  Kings  of  England. 

2  vols.     London,  1769. 
Makower,  Felix  :  Constitutional  History  and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  England. 

English  translation.     London,  1895. 
Norgate,  Kate  :  England  under  the  Angevin  Kings.     2  vols.     London,  1887. 
Palgrave,  Francis:  History  of  Normandy  and  of  England.     4  vols.     London,  1878. 

Rise  and  Progress  of  the  English  Commonwealth.     2  vols.     London,  1832. 

Pinkerton,  John  :  Enquiry  into  the  History  of  Scotland.     2  vols.     1814. 
Ridpath,  George  :  Border  History  of  England  and  Scotland.     Berwick,  1848. 
Robertson,  Edward  William :  History  of  Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings.     2  vols. 

Edinburgh,  1862. 
Robertson,  William  :  History  of  Scotland.     15th  Ed.     3  vols.     London,  1797. 
Round,  John  Horace  :  Feudal  England.     London,  1895. 
Skene,  William  Forbes  :  Celtic  Scotland.     3  vols.     Edinburgh,  1876. 
Wakeman,    Henry   Offley,    and    Arthur   Hassall,  Eds.:   Essays    introductory  to    the 

Study  of  the  English  Constitution.     London,  1891. 

SPECIAL  ARTICLES. 

Tennyson,  Hallam  :  Translation  of  the  Ode  on  Brunanburh.     Contemporary  Review, 

November,  1879. 
Freeman,  Edward  A.:  Historical  Essays.     First  Series.     4th  Ed.     London,  1886. 


II 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


vaflf 


Nov  1 2 
0EC14«M 

DEC  2  8  195! 
°CT  A  o  RECO 


\* 


Form  L-9-15m-2,'36 


UKZVERSTTY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


A    000  993  593     3 


I 


"  3  ! 

a 


PLEASE  DO   NOT    REMOVE 

THIS   BOOK  CARDS 

i 


aAUIBRARYQ? 

31' 


£ 


University  Research  Library 


u 
> 

01 


^ 


s 


ft 

i 
■ 

■ 


